10 dead in Oregon Community College shooting

Jiggyfly said:

Yeah drugs and guns take up the same space and weight.

Click to expand...

That's the best you could come up with? Seriously?


You used the right emoji, anyway.

Jiggyfly said:

Yeah drugs and guns take up the same space and weight.

Click to expand...

Jig, you're pretty smart, I agree with you on a lot of things, particularly when it comes to criminal justice. You have to know that drugs come across our borders by the ton. A boat dropping off cash or drugs could just as easily be stacked with weapons if we created a more rewarding market for them.

Let's not even talk about the horrid stuff like human trafficking, which you have to admit is probably way more difficult than shipping inanimate guns that you can disassemble, and don't need food, water or air. Plus in the advent of 3d printing, criminals may not even need to import.

L.T. Fan said:

What are the stats now on released prisoners becoming repeat offenders and returning? It used to be pretty high.

Click to expand...

It depends greatly on the demographic. Guys over 35 (except sex offenders who need to be shot anyway) are far less likely to re-offend. People statistically age out of crime. The social aspect of the criminal lifestyle isn't there for them any more and they aren't drawn to it like they were when they were young.

Clay_Allison said:

It depends greatly on the demographic. Guys over 35 (except sex offenders who need to be shot anyway) are far less likely to re-offend. People statistically age out of crime. The social aspect of the criminal lifestyle isn't there for them any more and they aren't drawn to it like they were when they were young.

Click to expand...

http://www.crimeinamerica.net/2010/09/29/percent-of-released-prisoners-returning-to-incarceration/
The article gives some numbers.

Jiggyfly said:

Don't come in here with that dribble all aspects of the constitution are subject to interpretation there is nothing that he stated that is not already on the books, please show me what you believe he said was unconstitutional or are you saying any restrictions are so?

Click to expand...

Any restrictions on the federal level certainly are.

Certainly the Constitution is subject to interpretation to an extent. But there isn't much to interpret about 'shall not be infringed.' It's quite straight forward.

Memory serves me that the constitution is only about 16 and one half pages so with all the constitutional law that has been written it would seem that the majority is likely interpretation.

townsend said:

Jig, you're pretty smart, I agree with you on a lot of things, particularly when it comes to criminal justice. You have to know that drugs come across our borders by the ton. A boat dropping off cash or drugs could just as easily be stacked with weapons if we created a more rewarding market for them.

Let's not even talk about the horrid stuff like human trafficking, which you have to admit is probably way more difficult than shipping inanimate guns that you can disassemble, and don't need food, water or air. Plus in the advent of 3d printing, criminals may not even need to import.

Click to expand...

Never said it would stop guns from getting in I said they would not be as readily available as they are now and access would not be as easy as it is now.

What about that is untrue?

Let's not get off target on what I was originally responding to, Iamtdg said banning guns would have no effect on criminals getting there hands on them which is why I said what I said.

I am not for banning guns but by any logical thought process you have to realize how much easier it is now to get guns.

This drug analogy really has no bearing you can get a large quantity of drugs and make a lot more money than with the same space and wieght you would use to smuggle guns, why smuggle a gun when that space can be used for a coupleof more kilos of coke, smack or weed which is probably more valuable.

Can we agree on that?

US woman shoots at shoplifter as he flees store


Woman says she was told to pump breast milk in airport pet area
Douglas County District Attorney Rick Wesenberg, center, describes the events surrounding the officer involved shooting the morning of the mass murders at Umpqua Community College, during press conference in Roseburg, Ore.
College massacre: Police fired before suicide
A Home Depot store is seen in Los Angeles
© REUTERS/Lucy Nicholson A Home Depot store is seen in Los Angeles
A woman in suburban Detroit opened fire on a shoplifter after seeing a security guard chase him out of a Home Depot store, police said.

The shoplifter in Tuesday's Home Depot incident was not injured, the Detroit Free Press said.

It was not clear if the woman, who has a license to carry a concealed weapon, would face any charges for taking the law into her own hands.

The woman, 48, was in the parking lot when she saw a security guard chase a black man in his 40s out of the store. The man jumped into a waiting sports utility vehicle and the woman opened fire when it began to pull away. Police believe she shot out one of the tires.

A spokesman for the Auburn Hills police department did not immediately return a request for comment. The department did, however, publish some details on Twitter.

It noted that "business was not disrupted" and asked for the public's help in locating the "getaway" car.

The incident comes just a few weeks after a bank customer in a neighboring Detroit suburb shot a robber as he was fleeing the scene.

The local mayor said the 63-year-old man, who also had a license to carry a weapon, acted within his rights because the robber threatened him on his way out the door.

The robber, 43, was treated in hospital after being shot once in each arm and once in a leg.

"I'm happy that no one was seriously injured," Jim Fouts, the mayor of Warren, Michigan, told the Detroit Free Press at the time. "He apparently exercised some caution by not shooting the robber in a vital area."

Jiggyfly said:

Never said it would stop guns from getting in I said they would not be as readily available as they are now and access would not be as easy as it is now.

What about that is untrue?

Let's not get off target on what I was originally responding to, Iamtdg said banning guns would have no effect on criminals getting there hands on them which is why I said what I said.

I am not for banning guns but by any logical thought process you have to realize how much easier it is now to get guns.

This drug analogy really has no bearing you can get a large quantity of drugs and make a lot more money than with the same space and wieght you would use to smuggle guns, why smuggle a gun when that space can be used for a coupleof more kilos of coke, smack or weed which is probably more valuable.

Can we agree on that?

Click to expand...

One thing you might consider re: the effect of banning guns, what type of guns end up out there if they are being smuggled in from Mexico. If you're facing time for getting caught with a gun, might as well go out and get automatic weapons. About the cheapest and easiest guns to make are submachine guns. Ak47s aren't far behind that. Beyond that you're looking at people resorting to car bombs. A gun ban could result in escalation rather than elimination of the problem.

Clay_Allison said:

One thing you might consider re: the effect of banning guns, what type of guns end up out there if they are being smuggled in from Mexico. If you're facing time for getting caught with a gun, might as well go out and get automatic weapons. About the cheapest and easiest guns to make are submachine guns. Ak47s aren't far behind that. Beyond that you're looking at people resorting to car bombs. A gun ban could result in escalation rather than elimination of the problem.

Click to expand...

This topic has gone down the rabbit hole.

I don't advocate banning guns and yes these same people would find other ways to mass kill.

I was responding to an aside and it has taken on a life of it's own.

L.T. Fan said:

Memory serves me that the constitution is only about 16 and one half pages so with all the constitutional law that has been written it would seem that the majority is likely interpretation.

Click to expand...

The feds and the courts like to use shaky or patently false definitions of words to increase the power of government outside of its right boundaries though. This has been going on since pretty much the dawn of the Republic. For instance, the garbage they allow under the guise of 'interstate commerce' is appalling and infuriating.

Jiggyfly said:

Never said it would stop guns from getting in I said they would not be as readily available as they are now and access would not be as easy as it is now.

What about that is untrue?

Let's not get off target on what I was originally responding to, Iamtdg said banning guns would have no effect on criminals getting there hands on them which is why I said what I said.

I am not for banning guns but by any logical thought process you have to realize how much easier it is now to get guns.

This drug analogy really has no bearing you can get a large quantity of drugs and make a lot more money than with the same space and wieght you would use to smuggle guns, why smuggle a gun when that space can be used for a coupleof more kilos of coke, smack or weed which is probably more valuable.

Can we agree on that?

Click to expand...

I would say it depends on availability. If you have coke you may choose to import coke, but you have coke and guns, you'll likely manage to smuggle both across. It's not like the ease of drug trafficking has prevented the much more complicated human trafficking.

If there's a market for it, some cartel will gladly throw their resources at it. So now gun manufacturing will be a part of their large profit margins.

townsend said:

I would say it depends on availability. If you have coke you may choose to import coke, but you have coke and guns, you'll likely manage to smuggle both across. It's not like the ease of drug trafficking has prevented the much more complicated human trafficking.

If there's a market for it, some cartel will gladly throw their resources at it. So now gun manufacturing will be a part of their large profit margins.

Click to expand...

Are you really trying to argue that guns will be as readily available as they are now if there was a ban?

Because that's the only point I have been discussing, you keep framing your argument as if I am saying there would be no market or demand when I have never disputed that, my entire point was access to guns in the market place.

Anyway I m done on this topic it has run it's course.

Jiggyfly said:

Are you really trying to argue that guns will be as readily available as they are now if there was a ban?

Because that's the only point I have been discussing, you keep framing your argument as if I am saying there would be no market or demand when I have never disputed that, my entire point was access to guns in the market place.

Anyway I m done on this topic it has run it's course.

Click to expand...

As available? No. As available to criminals, yes. Provided they're willing to pay for them..

How hard is it for a convict to illegally obtain a weapon right now?

townsend said:

As available? No. As available to criminals, yes. Provided they're willing to pay for them..

How hard is it for a convict to illegally obtain a weapon right now?

Click to expand...

The only real difference I guess would be that if an officer stumbles upon a weapon they can arrest the person immediately before they potentially commit a crime. Which sounds great but the trade off is that no law abiding citizen would be allowed to have a fire arm. I'd say the the costs in such a situation would far exceed the benefit.

It would also create a whole new black market industry and we all know those don't attract more crime or anything.

townsend said:

As available? No. As available to criminals, yes. Provided they're willing to pay for them..

How hard is it for a convict to illegally obtain a weapon right now?

Click to expand...

It's not hard because they are more readily available to the general public meaning legal guns can be easily bought and then sold illegally.

And guns would be much more expensive which using basic economics would also make them harder to get right?

Really Towns you are just fuckin with me now right?

Jiggyfly said:

It's not hard because they are more readily available to the general public meaning legal guns can be easily bought and then sold illegally.

And guns would be much more expensive which using basic economics would also make them harder to get right?

Really Towns you are just fuckin me now right?

Click to expand...

like I said they would have to pay for it. But don't think a ban takes guns off the streets. We are far too saturated with weapons in this country even if we forced every legally owned weapon to be melted down, there'd still be millions swirling around in the black market. How many convicts own a gun right now? How many gun runners have stockpiles? If all you wanna do is eliminate law abiding citizens and low low level criminals from owning guns you can do that, but it'd only mean gangs and cartels are that much more powerful.

You're effectively saying that a monopoly given to violent criminals will somehow eliminate violent crime.

townsend said:

like I said they would have to pay for it. But don't think a ban takes guns off the streets. We are far too saturated with weapons in this country even if we forced every legally owned weapon to be melted down, there'd still be millions swirling around in the black market. How many convicts own a gun right now? How many gun runners have stockpiles? If all you wanna do is eliminate law abiding citizens and low low level criminals from owning guns you can do that, but it'd only mean gangs and cartels are that much more powerful.

You're effectively saying that a monopoly given to violent criminals will somehow eliminate violent crime.

Click to expand...

So you just ignored evrything i said about guns still being available but not as easily with a ban or that I have never advocated banning guns.

Or that I never said it would would elimate violent crimes.

I have staed several times what I was getting at yet you keep ignoring that to argue points I have never made.

Let me try again, a gun ban would make guns harder and more expensive to get nothing more or less and I have never advocated having a ban it was a simple supply argument.

Jiggyfly said:

Let me try again, a gun ban would make guns harder and more expensive to get nothing more or less and I have never advocated having a ban it was a simple supply argument.

Click to expand...

I agree with that point, but it would not make them significantly more difficult to acquire. So what's the point?

townsend said:

I agree with that point, but it would not make them significantly more difficult to acquire. So what's the point?

Click to expand...

Let's just agree to disagree.