Video captures attacker shooting, robbing 71-year-old man watering his lawn

[TurtleDude]

Possessing nuclear material with an intent to use it harmfully is against the law too - but fortunately (unlike with guns) ordinary people aren't allowed access to it, so any such cases would be extremely rare.

well we know that there are about 400 million firearms in the USA. there is very little fissionable nuclear material floating around. so your argument or analogy really is silly. tell us what you would do to keep someone intent on violating laws that carry 20+ years in prison from getting a gun

 

[TurtleDude]

What species of violent crime was it? The crime was violent in nature, yes, and according to the article a gun was used in a way similar to many other crimes of that nature.

are you serious? why is it so hard to understand that someone who doesn't fear the consequences of 20 years in prison for committing attempted murder is not going to worry about another gun law that says he cannot have the gun

or do you actually believe gun bans will stop hard core criminals from getting guns

 

[Celebrity]

are you serious? why is it so hard to understand that someone who doesn't fear the consequences of 20 years in prison for committing attempted murder is not going to worry about another gun law that says he cannot have the gun

or do you actually believe gun bans will stop hard core criminals from getting guns

Why is it hard to understand that gun violence will continue as long as guns are readily available to criminals?

 

[TurtleDude]

Why is it hard to understand that gun violence will continue as long as guns are readily available to criminals?

why is it hard to understand that the solutions gun banners spew don't limit availability of guns to law breakers but rather disarm and harass honest people?

 

[Celebrity]

why is it hard to understand that the solutions gun banners spew don't limit availability of guns to law breakers but rather disarm and harass honest people?

Why is it hard to understand that doing the same thing over and over again, while expecting different results is insanity?

 

[Mason66]

But why are those with murderous criminal culture allowed to have guns? Should they be allowed to have nukes too? Where should the line be drawn and why?

What do you mean allowed?

 

[joG]

It's possible to drown in eight inches of water. What's your point?

Do you really think that we can eradicate violence or lethal force before implementing legislation regarding a weapon which is designed to kill?

Yes. I think that the place to start is at a completely different level.

 

[RetiredUSN]

They should be trained and utilize that training in spotting straw purchasers. It's against ethics if a salesperson suspects that the person they're selling a weapon to is going to give it to somebody else who cannot legally purchase one. They should not go through with the sale. These problem shops where the majority of these weapons are coming from are either not properly trained in spotting straw purchasers or just not giving a **** and selling the guns knowingly. Either way it's a problem.

I don't think that you, or myself, could tell what a straw purchaser acts and looks like.

Nobody can read minds.

 

[HenryChinaski]

I don't think that you, or myself, could tell what a straw purchaser acts and looks like.

Nobody can read minds.

Well trained gun salesman can and do. There is training and techniques used by gun shops to spot straw purchasers. Most of the time that entails asking just a few questions. The bad apple shops are either corrupt or ignorant and not trained properly. https://everytownresearch.org/reports/inside-straw-purchasing-criminals-get-guns-illegally/ They pick easy shops.

 

[Beaudreaux]

I blame the criminal as well as the supplier that passed the weapon to the shooter that in all probability bought the gun legally from a shop with a record of selling weapons to straw purchasers.

Sure are a hell of a lot of assumptions in that post. In fact, everything in that post past the first four words is nothing but refutable and emotional argument based solely on ideological bias which is diametrically opposed to the first four words and proves my point very vividly where I say: "It's criminal violence which is part of a culture that accepts such criminal violence and makes excuses for it by blaming everything and everyone else other than those that actually do the criminal violence as well as those that enable the criminal violence."

But, that's your right.

 

[Beaudreaux]

It's both.

Okay. Then let's assume for a moment for the sake of honest debate that what you say is true, which then begs the question, what did the gun do? Not what a person made it do, but what exactly did it do on it's own without any outside influence at all?

 

[Beaudreaux]

But why are those with murderous criminal culture allowed to have guns? Should they be allowed to have nukes too? Where should the line be drawn and why?

Nukes? Seriously? Crazy murderous criminals have nukes now, just not in the US - think DPRK, Pakistan, and soon to be Iran.

As for drawing a line, it's already been drawn. Except the line draw was to restrict the government, not the people, and it's called the US Constitution with subsequent SCOTUS rulings.

 

[ttwtt78640]

It's both.

I've owned guns for forty years an have seen no violence from them at all. The point is that a gun is merely a tool and, as such, its user alone decides to what end it is used.

 

[Patrickt]

It is "gun violence." You don't need to sugarcoat it. I know that violence is criminal when it is murder.

Of course. Without a gun, the thug would be working somewhere and leading a productive life. He would have finished school, waited to have kids till he wanted a family, and liberals would care about people in their cities. The gun is obviously the key.

 

[sanman]

Nukes? Seriously? Crazy murderous criminals have nukes now, just not in the US - think DPRK, Pakistan, and soon to be Iran.

As for drawing a line, it's already been drawn. Except the line draw was to restrict the government, not the people, and it's called the US Constitution with subsequent SCOTUS rulings.

In principle, what makes an RPG or bazooka any less valid under the 2nd amendment? What makes a stick of dynamite any less acceptable?
Why not a do-it-yourself Predator drone? I'm sure any highschool-level garage-tinkerer could easily whip one up.

Is the capacity of an item to do damage relevant here? It should be - and that's what a gun is designed to do - it's a weapon of ballistic offense, not a weapon of defense like a shield or body-armor. Any weapon of offense can be readily used to commit a felony - this is inherent to the item itself.

 

[Beaudreaux]

In principle, what makes an RPG or bazooka any less valid under the 2nd amendment? What makes a stick of dynamite any less acceptable?
Why not a do-it-yourself Predator drone? I'm sure any highschool-level garage-tinkerer could easily whip one up.

Is the capacity of an item to do damage relevant here? It should be - and that's what a gun is designed to do - it's a weapon of ballistic offense, not a weapon of defense like a shield or body-armor. Any weapon of offense can be readily used to commit a felony - this is inherent to the item itself.

The answers to the questions you ask were answered in the post you quoted of mine before you even asked them.

 

[TurtleDude]

Why is it hard to understand that doing the same thing over and over again, while expecting different results is insanity?

you mean like Democrats passing stupid gun laws over and over that do nothing to control crime

 

[TurtleDude]

I've owned guns for forty years an have seen no violence from them at all. The point is that a gun is merely a tool and, as such, its user alone decides to what end it is used.

true enough

 

[apdst]

Another victim in Chicago was watering his lawn before getting robbed and shot.


How can we put an end to gun violence? I guess that's just treating the symptom, but it's not a cure. Even if that man was carrying $200, it would still be less expensive than the surgery.

It's been said in the past that war creates jobs. Well if there's war in the streets of Chiraq, then I think the healthcare system is getting another long-term customer. He might be stable now, but just think of what a bullet wound could do to the body of a senior citizen. It's not pretty.

Theft is not a sustainable model for business, and it's bad for society. But not all thieves rob if it's a matter of life and death, some make a career out of it. Is the justice system doing it's job? We prosecute tons of non-violent offenders, yet a career criminal's first priority is to not get caught. Otherwise, she or he wouldn't have a career. When you have teams of people competing with each other, people of different ages and creeds and so on, it's natural in the great 'melting pot.' I don't know what motivated this individual to go so far as to kill, maybe it's because he is unwell. Maybe his partner is also unwell. Maybe not. But gun control and the prison industrial complex only seem to be exacerbating the problem.

---

Source:
Video captures attacker shooting, robbing 71-year-old man watering his lawn - Chicago Tribune

The only gun problem I see, is that the victim wasn't strapped and didn't blow that Harvard's brains all over his lawn.

 

[sanman]

The answers to the questions you ask were answered in the post you quoted of mine before you even asked them.

No, they were completely different from the points I just raised, because you don't have an argument against them.

Guns are weapons of offense not defense. The only reason why people try to use guns as "defense" is out of the belief that "the best defense is a good offense" - but that still doesn't change the offensive nature of the item itself. Guns are all about offense - and that's what makes them so particularly useful for committing felonious acts of an offensive nature.

 

[American]

It's possible to drown in eight inches of water. What's your point?

Do you really think that we can eradicate violence or lethal force before implementing legislation regarding a weapon which is designed to kill?

We already have books full of laws against "gun violence". How's that working for you?

 

[TurtleDude]

No, they were completely different from the points I just raised, because you don't have an argument against them.

Guns are weapons of offense not defense. The only reason why people try to use guns as "defense" is out of the belief that "the best defense is a good offense" - but that still doesn't change the offensive nature of the item itself. Guns are all about offense - and that's what makes them so particularly useful for committing felonious acts of an offensive nature.

what relevance does this have. why do cops carry firearms?

 

[sanman]

what relevance does this have. why do cops carry firearms?

Because the police likewise believe that "the best defense is a good offense". Cops can run jails too - which are designed to confine people and take away their freedoms. Does that mean that any ordinary person has the right to take away someone's freedoms on their own personal judgement and cognizance?

 

[Celebrity]

The only gun problem I see, is that the victim wasn't strapped and didn't blow that Harvard's brains all over his lawn.

And yet another example is given of how guns facilitate violence. Not really helping the whole situation with perpetual violence.

We already have books full of laws against "gun violence". How's that working for you?

I wouldn't waste my time studying that partisan fluff.

 

[American]

And yet another example is given of how guns facilitate violence. Not really helping the whole situation with perpetual violence.



I wouldn't waste my time studying that partisan fluff.

You wouldn't waste your time reading the law, or couldn't? I'm betting the latter. You think you're the smartest guy in the room; bad thinking.