Thanks, GOP & NRA! 231 Mass Shooting in 2024 (UPDATED 06/20/24)

[IUCrazy2]

Since cray and doc liked your post I'll address all three of you as if you all agree...

I'm pretty sure that MI's law is not an additional law, as prior to the 2008 SCOTUS Heller decision, it would have been illegal anywhere in the US to have a loaded firearm in your vehicle. So it wasn't MI that abolished sensible laws, it was the GOP Legislatures that mandated open carry. It's even a hugely popular cause among the right to push for "constitutional carry", the notion that open carry laws superceded any states ability to restrict open carry in their jurisdiction...

So my first assumption, and correct me if I'm wrong... The pro-gun crowd on this board believes in the concept of open carry as a constitutional right. And at least as it pertains to you three, if you believe it is your "right" to open carry, that would mean you believe having a loaded weapon in your vehicle is also a "right"...

Again correct me if I'm wrong... So unless you feel that right only extends to certain folks, would you say that the crime of having a loaded weapon in your vehicle is not really a crime, but rather a "constitutional right"? And if you're going to say "it's MI law" and make that distinction I'll remind you that none of you were willing to apply that distinction when it came to Rittenhouse and his violation of WI law. Again, correct me if I'm wrong and any of you argued against that charge being dropped by the judge...

So my point is that it's the height of cynicism and basically hypocrisy to now attack the "liberal" prosecutor because he declined to prosecute a law that none of you personally agree with. Esp since you oppose the law itself and seemingly agree with activist Legislatures who have basically done away with the law that you're now upset wasn't enforced?

I disagree with the Prosecutors decision not to prosecute just as I disagree with the judge throwing out the violations of WI law that Rit was guilty of. But that's because I agree with both laws, and I don't believe in open carry as some sort of a right.

I just see it as a cynical self serving argument to conveniently blame the DA for not enforcing a law you disagree with. The reality is had the stop occurred in IN it would not have been a crime and YOU personally prefer the IN scenario. So now you disingenuously want to use this as an example of gun laws (which you hate) not being enforced?

But again if any of you do actually think it should be against the law to carry a loaded weapon in your vehicle, then I apologize for lumping you in with the hypocrites...

All of those words and you did not address my point at all. YOU GUYS WANT THE LAWS. When you have the laws, your side doesn't enforce them. So what is the point of new laws that will similarly go unenforced?

Forget what I do or do not want, it is immaterial to the argument you were making. You are arguing there should be more laws to stop gun crime. The laws were in place in Michigan, a progressive DA did not enforce them, and a guy who, by the laws you all claim to want, should not have legally been allowed to have a gun, managed to not only have one but use it to murder several people. So again, your argument against my point that there is no point in having the laws in place of progressive DAs will not enforce them is to say, "Well you all don't want laws anyway!"

Why should law abiding citizens give up a right because of criminals that gun grabbers refuse to throw the book at?

 

[Stuffshot]

Before we go into a history lesson, just acknowledge the second amendment does not exist to protect me in a gun fight against the bad guys. Our founding fathers put it in place to defend ourselves against our own government if it turned tyrannical. They had the foresight to add that after what they had just gone through. This isnt about gunslingers, Cowboys and the wild west. I never said it was.

I agree that the Second Amendment was not about personal protection, despite the bulk of the pro-gun arguments being made today. But the Second Amendment contemplated that a militia would support the federal government, not overthrow it:

By saying, “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" the Second Amendment was intended to make sure the federal government had the support of a "Militia".

In fact, the federal government called up state militias to put down the Whiskey Rebellion in the years immediately following enactment of the Constitution.

Whiskey Rebellion - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Spartans9312]

All of those words and you did not address my point at all. YOU GUYS WANT THE LAWS. When you have the laws, your side doesn't enforce them. So what is the point of new laws that will similarly go unenforced?

Forget what I do or do not want, it is immaterial to the argument you were making. You are arguing there should be more laws to stop gun crime. The laws were in place in Michigan, a progressive DA did not enforce them, and a guy who, by the laws you all claim to want, should not have legally been allowed to have a gun, managed to not only have one but use it to murder several people. So again, your argument against my point that there is no point in having the laws in place of progressive DAs will not enforce them is to say, "Well you all don't want laws anyway!"

Why should law abiding citizens give up a right because of criminals that gun grabbers refuse to throw the book at?

He wants gun laws for rural folks…and he wants them to be prosecuted to the full extent of said law. Don’t you know that the problems in urban America are caused by all the gun owners in rural America.

 

[secondasky]

I found this where they did a study of a 1000 women where they found 95% of the women who got a abortion said they made the right decision

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/05/15/1098347992/a-landmark-study-tracks-the-lasting-effect-of-having-an-abortion-or-being-denied

The majority of those expressing remorse begins in year 10+, not the early years when they are young or where people are telling them they did the right thing. Years of refection and experience eventually add up. Ask a doc in the mental health field about this especially when it happens in the last trimester.

 

[mcmurtry66]

He wants gun laws for rural folks…and he wants them to be prosecuted to the full extent of said law. Don’t you know that the problems in urban America are caused by all the gun owners in rural America.

The disconnect on legislating a fix in urban America is how the guns are acquired as well as the guns already in circulation

 

[IUCrazy2]

The disconnect on legislating a fix in urban America is how the guns are acquired as well as the guns already in circulation

The only way you can legislate a fix is to completely take them away from everyone. They always compare to other countries and the countries being compared to are always almost a complete restriction or regulations so strict as to make owning a gun next to pointless. Like the idea of having to lock it up at some facility you would need to go to to get access.

Progressives never express the end point early on. They always boil the frog slowly. Anyone who believes them on their face is an idiot who has failed to observe how they operate.

 

[Spartans9312]

The disconnect on legislating a fix in urban America is how the guns are acquired as well as the guns already in circulation

Do the progressive DA’s really care?

 

[Spartans9312]

The only way you can legislate a fix is to completely take them away from everyone. They always compare to other countries and the countries being compared to are always almost a complete restriction or regulations so strict as to make owning a gun next to pointless. Like the idea of having to lock it up at some facility you would need to go to to get access.

Progressives never express the end point early on. They always boil the frog slowly. Anyone who believes them on their face is an idiot who has failed to observe how they operate.

Yep….there is no middle ground

 

[IUCrazy2]

Do the progressive DA’s really care?

They are stopping the prison pipeline. It is equity. Yippee. And as a bonus, they don't live in those neighborhoods to deal with the consequences of their inaction. There is nothing more devastating to poor minority communities than white liberals with "good intentions".

You need the discipline of a parent and you end up with a teenage babysitter who let's you stay up late, eat a pound of chocolate, and drink 3 energy drinks after 10 pm. Progressive White Liberals are the equivalent of putting that dumb ass teenager in charge of your kids and letting them make decisions based on their view of "fair". Then that dumbass teenager goes home and you are left to deal with the kid bouncing off the walls until the wee hours of the morning along with the sleep deprivation hangover the next day....and then the dumbass comes over that evening and starts the process again.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Do the progressive DA’s really care?

Progressive DAs are a problem but so too is the reality of incarcerating more than we have the infrastructure to handle. In one week in a city of under 300k we had 150 stolen cars and 31 car jackings. The math doesn’t work. And the notion people are sitting in jail on pot charges in urban areas is silly. The system requires deals and probation. So if we are going to get aggressive and throw away the key, which I’m fine with, we need to decriminalize more stuff or have more alternative sentencing programs. Progressive DAs are a problem but certainly not THE problem

 

[Chicago-bound Hoosier]

I agree that the Second Amendment was not about personal protection, despite the bulk of the pro-gun arguments being made today. But the Second Amendment contemplated that a militia would support the federal government, not overthrow it:

By saying, “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" the Second Amendment was intended to make sure the federal government had the support of a "Militia".

In fact, the federal government called up state militias to put down the Whiskey Rebellion in the years immediately following enactment of the Constitution.

Whiskey Rebellion - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Personal protection is covered in the first sentence of the Declaration of Independence.

And this was during a period of our country when our leaders, and most all of the people, believed in the importance, no, the absolutely necessity of limited big Fed government. The federalist principle, give the power to the states (not the swamp), that way the power in our nation is closest to the people in this country who casts the votes. We've since lost our way badly. We've relinquished too much power to a body who has written $32 Trillion in checks that our bank account can't cover, and colludes with all media (both tv print and virtual) to control perceived reality to everyday Americans.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

The only way you can legislate a fix is to completely take them away from everyone. They always compare to other countries and the countries being compared to are always almost a complete restriction or regulations so strict as to make owning a gun next to pointless. Like the idea of having to lock it up at some facility you would need to go to to get access.

Progressives never express the end point early on. They always boil the frog slowly. Anyone who believes them on their face is an idiot who has failed to observe how they operate.

We blame the DA because this guy did not get a felony for concealed carry without a permit. Yet Indiana has made it completely legal to carry without a concealed permit. Does anyone see a disconnect here? If the DA had fought for a felony, there would have been a thread here about the horrible police state going after gun owners.

 

[mcmurtry66]

We blame the DA because this guy did not get a felony for concealed carry without a permit. Yet Indiana has made it completely legal to carry without a concealed permit. Does anyone see a disconnect here? If the DA had fought for a felony, there would have been a thread here about the horrible police state going after gun owners.

We are all over the map and a mess in how we treat guns

 

[Marvin the Martian]

We are all over the map and a mess in how we treat guns

I agree. I have a lot of friends who are gun owners, I appreciate that. But not everyone can be trusted with a gun, they should appreciate that.

And we need to teach people that guns are not our national symbol. Too many people believe having a gun, enemy threatening with a gun, makes one tough. "You cut me off in traffic, I must shoot you" has become our national motto.

 

[mcmurtry66]

I agree. I have a lot of friends who are gun owners, I appreciate that. But not everyone can be trusted with a gun, they should appreciate that.

And we need to teach people that guns are not our national symbol. Too many people believe having a gun, enemy threatening with a gun, makes one tough. "You cut me off in traffic, I must shoot you" has become our national motto.

Yep! I think if we got serious about guns we would spend a decade of aggressive alternative sentencing for a host of crimes and throwing away the key on gun charges to make a dent in the guns in circulation being used. Then for uncle Ken who loves his guns make him keep them at an AFFORDABLE gun club. Make licensing and permits and registration difficult. That’d be my three pronged approach if I were king for a day. Oh and lift immunity.

 

[Baller23Boogie]

The majority of those expressing remorse begins in year 10+, not the early years when they are young or where people are telling them they did the right thing. Years of refection and experience eventually add up. Ask a doc in the mental health field about this especially when it happens in the last trimester.

You got a link for that or are you just expressing a opinion?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

The majority of those expressing remorse begins in year 10+, not the early years when they are young or where people are telling them they did the right thing. Years of refection and experience eventually add up. Ask a doc in the mental health field about this especially when it happens in the last trimester.

You just pulled that straight out of your ass, didn't you?

 

[secondasky]

You got a link for that or are you just expressing a opinion?

Not a link but heard it from an actual doc. That's why I said just ask one.

 

[Spartans9312]

I agree. I have a lot of friends who are gun owners, I appreciate that. But not everyone can be trusted with a gun, they should appreciate that.

And we need to teach people that guns are not our national symbol. Too many people believe having a gun, enemy threatening with a gun, makes one tough. "You cut me off in traffic, I must shoot you" has become our national motto.

There’s not a lot of “you cut me off in traffic, I must shoot you” occurring in my area. It sure as the hell isn’t a national motto. If that is occurring in your area then the citizenry there needs to a little introspection.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Not a link but heard it from an actual doc. That's why I said just ask one.

Doc probably pulled it out of his ass. Bring the numbers.

 

[Baller23Boogie]

Not a link but heard it from an actual doc. That's why I said just ask one.

So in other words, "trust me."

Yeah, going with the actual studies that have been performed on the subject over a doc you heard it from.

 

[secondasky]

So in other words, "trust me."

Yeah, going with the actual studies that have been performed on the subject over a doc you heard it from.

Here you go.

Pro-life leaders rip 'inherently tainted' research purporting to debunk abortion 'regret'

Pro-life leaders are denouncing research that purports to debunk the idea women regret their abortions -- reinvigorating debate about the basis for restricting the procedure.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Baller23Boogie]

Here you go.

Pro-life leaders rip 'inherently tainted' research purporting to debunk abortion 'regret'

Pro-life leaders are denouncing research that purports to debunk the idea women regret their abortions -- reinvigorating debate about the basis for restricting the procedure.

www.foxnews.com

Show me the study that supports your argument, not a fox News article refuting a study that was done already because we already know that fox is going to slant to pro life.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

There’s not a lot of “you cut me off in traffic, I must shoot you” occurring in my area. It sure as the hell isn’t a national motto. If that is occurring in your area then the citizenry there needs to a little introspection.

Are you suggesting people aren't using guns to settle disputes better settled in other ways? Or are you saying there is zero need for guns for safety because the fears and need of everyone in your party be armed and familiar with the Rolling T are overblown?

 

[secondasky]

Show me the study that supports your argument, not a fox News article refuting a study that was done already because we already know that fox is going to slant to pro life.

If you took the time to read the article you would see where they refer to studies you can click on. And the article does quote several docs. I am not agreeing or disagreeing with everything in the article but there are some statements that do mirror the doc's comments previously.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

If you took the time to read the article you would see where they refer to studies you can click on. And the article does quote several docs. I am not agreeing or disagreeing with everything in the article but there are some statements that do mirror the doc's comments previously.

What studies? All I saw was people dismissing this one study.

Edit: I see what you mean, near the bottom. But those studies don't contradict or even address what the original study said. And you can't use qualitative research as a substitute for rigorous quantitative.

 

[Baller23Boogie]

If you took the time to read the article you would see where they refer to studies you can click on. And the article does quote several docs. I am not agreeing or disagreeing with everything in the article but there are some statements that do mirror the doc's comments previously.

I did read the article.

All they did was disagree with the study that was talked about in the article.

Surely there would be a study done that would support your conclusions that you've stated.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I did read the article.

All they did was disagree with the study that was talked about in the article.

Surely there would be a study done that would support your conclusions that you've stated.

I've done some digging and it looks like a gap in the research. Lots of studies looking at a few weeks, months, a year later, and this study at five years, but I couldn't find any studies that look beyond that.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Refrain: When it comes to gun control, liberals are just f*cking stupid. Below is the white liberal female democratic Michigan Attorney General answer to the question about why wasn‘t the previous gun law violation enforced against the MSU shooter:

Nessel [AG] responded, “ Carrying a concealed weapon is the crime that this individual, Mr. McRae, was originally charged with. In Michigan, that’s technically a five-year felony. But our guidelines in Michigan really don’t even allow someone to spend much time at all in jail unless they have many previous offenses. And, as far as I know, th was a first-time weapons-related offense for this individual. That is such a common crime here that, if we were to lock up everyone who illegally carried a gun, we’d have to build more prisons. So, to me, it’s not a matter of incarcerating our way through this problem, it’s a matter of making guns less accessible and available to people.”​

​

Michigan apparently has strict concealed carry laws. (I’m pretty sure the NRA would have opposed such laws) But the law isn’t enforced because too many people violate it!. Maybe if the law were enforced, there would be fewer violations. My take away is that we shouldn’t enforce existing gun laws because too many violate it, so let’s have more and different gun laws.

Sheesh.

 

[DANC]

Progressive DAs are a problem but so too is the reality of incarcerating more than we have the infrastructure to handle. In one week in a city of under 300k we had 150 stolen cars and 31 car jackings. The math doesn’t work. And the notion people are sitting in jail on pot charges in urban areas is silly. The system requires deals and probation. So if we are going to get aggressive and throw away the key, which I’m fine with, we need to decriminalize more stuff or have more alternative sentencing programs. Progressive DAs are a problem but certainly not THE problem

So part of your solution is to build more prisons? I agree!

Problem is paying for them - no one wants to have their taxes raised for prisons or to live near them.

 

[mcmurtry66]

So part of your solution is to build more prisons? I agree!

Problem is paying for them - no one wants to have their taxes raised for prisons or to live near them.

Negative. that doesn't fix anything. and you are correct no one wants to live by them. i think it's time we learn to reevaluate things and think out of the box. alternative sentencing. grandma is a bookkeeper at the Ywca and embezzles 600k over ten years maybe prison isn't the right place for her. look to the best practices of other countries. make violent crime the priority, gun crimes the priority, and de-politicize prosecutorial/judge discretion etc

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Negative. that doesn't fix anything. and you are correct no one wants to live by them. i think it's time we learn to reevaluate things and think out of the box. alternative sentencing. grandma is a bookkeeper at the Ywca and embezzles 600k over ten years maybe prison isn't the right place for her. look to the best practices of other countries. make violent crime the priority, gun crimes the priority, and de-politicize prosecutorial/judge discretion etc

I agree with you BUT when CA had a rash of smash and grabs last summer didn't it lead to a rash of complaints about their attempt to prioritize violent crime?

Any crime with a weapon (cars, knives, guns, etc) should be prioritized. If that means letting out a drug user or shoplifter, so be it. But we have to realize that may just make shoplifting more attractive.

 

[DANC]

Negative. that doesn't fix anything. and you are correct no one wants to live by them. i think it's time we learn to reevaluate things and think out of the box. alternative sentencing. grandma is a bookkeeper at the Ywca and embezzles 600k over ten years maybe prison isn't the right place for her. look to the best practices of other countries. make violent crime the priority, gun crimes the priority, and de-politicize prosecutorial/judge discretion etc

I don't think any countries we would want to emulate have the same crime situation we have, but I can agree on alternative sentencing for non-violent crimes. But that may still require facilities to be built to house them, unless we just allow them to return home.

 

[mcmurtry66]

I agree with you BUT when CA had a rash of smash and grabs last summer didn't it lead to a rash of complaints about their attempt to prioritize violent crime?

Any crime with a weapon (cars, knives, guns, etc) should be prioritized. If that means letting out a drug user or shoplifter, so be it. But we have to realize that may just make shoplifting more attractive.

I think smash and grabs should be classified as violent

 

[mcmurtry66]

I don't think any countries we would want to emulate have the same crime situation we have, but I can agree on alternative sentencing for non-violent crimes. But that may still require facilities to be built to house them, unless we just allow them to return home.

A smash and grab is a violent frightening act. It’s materially different than the chrisley’s filling out fraudulent bank docs. So now they are punished. Their kids are punished. And we pay for them. Has to be a better creative way

 

[secondasky]

I did read the article.

All they did was disagree with the study that was talked about in the article.

Surely there would be a study done that would support your conclusions that you've stated.

You know what the doc said then I showed you the article where other well known mental health professionals posted similar comments. They don't fit your narrative so you don't agree and neither does your npr link because it doesn't talk about long term effects. As I suggested to you previously go ask a mental health professional yourself. Or keep searching the internet.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Progressive DAs are a problem but so too is the reality of incarcerating more than we have the infrastructure to handle. In one week in a city of under 300k we had 150 stolen cars and 31 car jackings. The math doesn’t work. And the notion people are sitting in jail on pot charges in urban areas is silly. The system requires deals and probation. So if we are going to get aggressive and throw away the key, which I’m fine with, we need to decriminalize more stuff or have more alternative sentencing programs. Progressive DAs are a problem but certainly not THE problem

We decriminalize lotsa stuff by default. In many cases, if it’s just a “harmless” property crime, a victim is told to file a report and the cops will get to it when they can. Denver has spent big bucks on gunfire detection technology, but unless there is actual victims, those calls don’t receive priority. In our neighborhood I see more temporary message signs reminding residents to lock your cars, don’t leave valuables in your car, keep houses locked even when home, etc. That is what passes for law enforcement. Soon we might be like San Fran where people actually leave vehicles with open doors to avoid smash and grabs.

We need.more cops and we need to move our culture into backing the blue.

We need to respond to all crimes.

We need broken window enforcement.

We need more active policing with checkpoints and stop and frisk.

We need alternatives to sentencing and less expensive methods of incarceration.

We need better classification of criminals to separate out violent prisoners.

We need more prosecutors, judges, courts, public defenders and prison beds.

We need more of everything in criminal justice.

The people should expect and receive safety and security— not violent anarchy.

 

[mcmurtry66]

We decriminalize lotsa stuff by default. In many cases, if it’s just a “harmless” property crime, a victim is told to file a report and the cops will get to it when they can. Denver has spent big bucks on gunfire detection technology, but unless there is actual victims, those calls don’t receive priority. In our neighborhood I see more temporary message signs reminding residents to lock your cars, don’t leave valuables in your car, keep houses locked even when home, etc. That is what passes for law enforcement. Soon we might be like San Fran where people actually leave vehicles with open doors to avoid smash and grabs.

We need.more cops and we need to move our culture into backing the blue.

We need to respond to all crimes.

We need broken window enforcement.

We need more active policing with checkpoints and stop and frisk.

We need alternatives to sentencing and less expensive methods of incarceration.

We need better classification of criminals to separate out violent prisoners.

We need more prosecutors, judges, courts, public defenders and prison beds.

We need more of everything in criminal justice.

The people should expect and receive safety and security— not violent anarchy.

We are told that here re leaving doors open. We do need more cops. Better cops. More better!!! Fine that univee!!! Bitch.

Legislation and creativity can help reduce the judicial burden too

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Negative. that doesn't fix anything. and you are correct no one wants to live by them. i think it's time we learn to reevaluate things and think out of the box. alternative sentencing. grandma is a bookkeeper at the Ywca and embezzles 600k over ten years maybe prison isn't the right place for her. look to the best practices of other countries. make violent crime the priority, gun crimes the priority, and de-politicize prosecutorial/judge discretion etc

My incarceration theory theory focuses age of the offender. Most violent offenders are in the 20-35 age range. Once past 35-40 or so violence drops off. I don’t think life in prison without parole is justified as often as it is imposed. Once an offender is older, he can be moved out to a low security facility or even into public housing. May have to pay for food and shelter, but that will be cheaper than a high security lock-up.

 

[mcmurtry66]

My incarceration theory theory focuses age of the offender. Most violent offenders are in the 20-35 age range. Once past 35-40 or so violence drops off. I don’t think life in prison without parole is justified as often as it is imposed. Once an offender is older, he can be moved out to a low security facility or even into public housing. May have to pay for food and shelter, but that will be cheaper than a high security lock-up.

That’s interesting. The violent crime spree we have at the moment here are between 12-17. That really stresses the system as it didn’t really contemplate same