OT: Gabe Kapler

Status
Not open for further replies.

mildone_rivals

Heisman
Dec 19, 2011
55,607
51,272
0
No deal. The deal is: drop voting, drinking and gun age to 16. And tell parents to quit treating their teenagers like helpless immature innocents unable to make responsible decisions.

The reason kids are immature at 18 isn't because of any biological change between now and 100 years ago. It's because parents have become ridiculous in their hovering and treating their kids like fragile china their whole lives. So kids don't start growing up until they leave home.

How many 18, 19 and 20 year olds commit mass shootings? How many do we have in the country? Okay, so that's like 99.999999% of 18, 19 and 20 year olds who do not commit mass shootings. And 0.0000001% who do. Maybe we shouldn't make laws affecting 99.999999% and focus on the 0.00000001% that are the problem.

(I put the voting age at 16 just to piss you off. We can really leave it at 18. 😉)
 
  • Like
Reactions: bac2therac

mildone_rivals

Heisman
Dec 19, 2011
55,607
51,272
0
Would that be for all guns and all elections?

I thought it was only certain weapons that the age would be raised?

So you would have to be 21 before you could vote in a Board of Education election
That avoids a conflict for HS kids voting for bad candidates. That could do real damage.
We should raise the IQ minimum for voting to 150. And make gun/drinking age 16.

Hell, the age of consent in NJ if 16. So they can decide to have children at 16, but not drink or defend themselves against violent criminals?

We should ban parents. Then we won't have so many immature children at such old ages.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: tom1944

bac2therac

Hall of Famer
Jul 30, 2001
247,627
177,341
113
No deal. The deal is: drop voting, drinking and gun age to 16. And tell parents to quit treating their teenagers like helpless immature innocents unable to make responsible decisions.

The reason kids are immature at 18 isn't because of any biological change between now and 100 years ago. It's because parents have become ridiculous in their hovering and treating their kids like fragile china their whole lives. So kids don't start growing up until they leave home.

How many 18, 19 and 20 year olds commit mass shootings? How many do we have in the country? Okay, so that's like 99.999999% of 18, 19 and 20 year olds who do not commit mass shootings. And 0.0000001% who do. Maybe we shouldn't make laws affecting 99.999999% and focus on the 0.00000001% that are the problem.

(I put the voting age at 16 just to piss you off. We can really leave it at 18. 😉)

Oh i actually agree..i think the argument libs use are arbitrary
 

mildone_rivals

Heisman
Dec 19, 2011
55,607
51,272
0
Oh i actually agree..i think the argument libs use are arbitrary
You know me. I think the args both libs and cons use are quite often, but not always, arbitrary and hypocritical. Most of the time, I think the correct answers lie somewhere between the extreme positions staked out by both sides. Sometimes closer to the right. Sometimes closer to the left. But always decided by facts, logic and reason - never because anything is popular.

Which basically means that I piss everybody off pretty equally, just depends on the specific issue. LOL
 
  • Like
Reactions: tom1944

Knightmoves

Heisman
Jul 31, 2001
30,466
16,377
113
Gang related?

They need to hit the gangs hard. There was a period of time when the gangs were under control we need to look at what was done and do it again
District Attorneys in Philly are some of the worst for catch and release of violent criminals. Why should Police risk their lives chasing a violent offender who won’t be charged by the Court system?
 

RUbacker

Heisman
Dec 5, 2014
15,941
22,505
108
Bail reform should not apply to violent crime charges

Legislative bodies should make that clear
Amazing how many common sense things our current leadership cannot figure out. It’s simple ! Don’t let violent criminals back on the street !!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: RUScrew85

RUbacker

Heisman
Dec 5, 2014
15,941
22,505
108
Seems to me the "libs" on this issue are the ones willing to make compromises and concessions, whereas the other side is basically deflect, dig in heels and, now, fake compromise.
That would be a no .
 

tom1944

All-American
Feb 22, 2008
6,596
6,972
0
Amazing how many common sense things our current leadership cannot figure out. It’s simple ! Don’t let violent criminals back on the street !!!
Is this a current leadership issue or multiple State and Local jurisdiction issue?
I don’t recall NJ allowing it but I will head to Google now to check

Has there been federal bail reform allowing people charged with violent crimes be released with no bail?
 
Last edited:

tom1944

All-American
Feb 22, 2008
6,596
6,972
0
Here is an article reporting favorable on NJ's bail reform. It mentions one criticism that some percentage of those released reoffend while out on no bail. Since the majority of offenses are drug possession charges I for one am not overly concerned with an addict being arrested again for possession. Violent offenders are not being released in NJ

 

RUbacker

Heisman
Dec 5, 2014
15,941
22,505
108
Is this a current leadership issue or multiple State and Local jurisdiction issue?
I don’t recall NJ allowing it but I will head to Google now to check

Has there been federal bail reform allowing people charged with violent crimes be released with no bail?
Don’t be an ***! Wether it’s local, state or federal leadership you don’t allow violent criminals to roam free. And while you are at it your ” Defund the police “ policy is so stupid as well.
 

tom1944

All-American
Feb 22, 2008
6,596
6,972
0
It appears that like most issues the cause is more complex than just a simply "my opponents did something that caused the problem"

There's no clear evidence linking bail reforms -- which have been in place for years in some cities -- to the recent rise in violent crimes. In fact, the majority of cities that have seen increases in crime have not eliminated cash bail. Many variables have contributed to the increases Graham is referencing but no evidence to suggest that bail reform is a major factor.
Several states and jurisdictions have passed bail reform to varying degrees for misdemeanor offenses. Washington, DC, removed cash bail in most cases in 1992. New Mexico largely eliminated it in 2016. In 2017, Cook County, Illinois, passed significant bail reform. The state of Illinois eliminated the practice in February but the change won't go into effect until 2023. New Jersey largely removed cash bail in 2017 and Alaska largely ended its cash bail system in 2018.
New York state passed legislation in 2019 on bail reform, making "release before trial automatic for most people accused of misdemeanors and nonviolent felonies," according to the Vera Institute of Justice. Three months after the law went into effect it was amended to allow judges more situations to institute cash bail. In March, the California Supreme Court ruled that defendants could not be jailed before their trials simply because they cannot afford their set bail.
However, the increase in crime has occurred in cities across the country, not just those with bail reform measures. According to a report from the Major Cities Chiefs Association, out of the 66 largest police jurisdictions, 63 saw an increase in at least one category of violent crimes in 2020, CNN reported.
The vast majority of these cities have not passed reforms eliminating bail.
Experts have noted that the increases in crime during the pandemic are not due to a single factor but rather to a "perfect storm" of events and changes including the subsequent economic collapse, changes in policing and more.

Studies on bail reform​

There have been very few studies analyzing the effects of bail reform on crime rates during the pandemic era and studies done prior to the pandemic have come to different conclusions as to the effects these reforms have had.
In a November 2020 report, the left-leaning Prison Policy Initiative, a criminal justice reform think tank, reviewed 13 jurisdictions that have instituted pretrial reforms -- including Washington, DC, New Jersey and Kentucky -- and found that "All but one of these jurisdictions saw decreases or negligible increases in crime after implementing reforms."
"The one exception is New York State," the report says, "where the reform law existed for just a few months before it was largely rolled back."
In July of last year, the New York Post investigated NYPD Commissioner Dermot Shea's claim that bail reform played a role in the rise in shootings. The Post reported that, according to data from the NYPD, bail reform did not play a role in the increase in shootings. Out of the 528 shootings from January 2020 through June 2020, only one person charged with a shooting had been released under the state's bail reform, according to the Post.
One study conducted prior to the pandemic contradicts the implication that bail reforms lead to a significant increase in violent crime. An October 2019 report from the University of New Mexico indicated that after the state's bail reforms were implemented, a majority of individuals released pretrial did not commit other crimes.
According to the report, "While approximately one-quarter of the defendants released were arrested for a new offense during the pretrial period, very few defendants released pretrial were arrested for a new violent crime."
Studies on certain jurisdictions, such as Cook County, disagree on whether cash bail can be linked to any increase in crime. Two studies from the University of Utah and Loyola University Chicago came to opposite conclusions on whether the bail reform in Cook County led to an increase in crime in the county.
These studies of Cook County are a clear example of how researchers disagree on methodology in studying the effects of bail reform and increases in crime.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BossNJ

tom1944

All-American
Feb 22, 2008
6,596
6,972
0
Don’t be an ***! Wether it’s local, state or federal leadership you don’t allow violent criminals to roam free. And while you are at it your ” Defund the police “ policy is so stupid as well.
The defund the police argument is a canard. The dems voted to increase funding on a national level.

I happen to agree violent criminals should not be released with no bail and I posted that. That policy seems to be the prevalent policy across the country - most jurisdictions whether under d or r control do not release violent offenders
 

tom1944

All-American
Feb 22, 2008
6,596
6,972
0
Don’t be an ***! Wether it’s local, state or federal leadership you don’t allow violent criminals to roam free. And while you are at it your ” Defund the police “ policy is so stupid as well.
Why do you refer to it as my defund the police policy?
The Republican governor just signed a law that the parents of a rapist can sue the woman he raped if she has a legal abortion in another State. Should I refer to that as your policy of allowing rape victims to be sued by the rapist's parents? That is an actual law unlike the defund the police nonsense which is only the position of about 4 congressional democrats

Heres the bill

 
Last edited:

RUbacker

Heisman
Dec 5, 2014
15,941
22,505
108
Why do you refer to it as my defund the police policy?
The Republican governor just signed a law that the parents of a rapist can sue the woman he raped if she has a legal abortion in another State. Should I refer to that as your policy of allowing rape victims to be sued by the rapist's parents? That is an actual law unlike the defund the police nonsense which is only the position of about 4 congressional democrats

Heres the bill

We get it you hate all republicans and that is your real agenda, not making things better or safer for the average American.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: BossNJ

MADHAT1

Heisman
Apr 1, 2003
31,449
16,282
113
Just describing you to others. Haven't read your posts. What are you whining about now?
he says :
:"Another silly post
The gang all joins to argue off topic stuff because they cannot address the actual posts
It’s juvenile "
and you critique his messages by claiming you don't read them.
Staying on the issue, aren't we
 
Oct 17, 2007
69,704
47,622
0
The proximity argument is a valid consideration. And yeah, I never subscribed to the "but Chicago" thing. Although people who do bring it up are correct in saying that, in general, Americans seem utterly disinterested in all the ordinary gun violence taking place in our cities all across the nation and only get interested when there's a mass shooting.

Which is understandable from an emotional standpoint. Shooting up a whole bunch of kids at school is incredibly upsetting to me and everyone else. Whereas ordinary human violence of all kinds occurs in our cities almost as regularly as breathing. So simple sanity preservation precludes us from dwelling too much on it - such violence occurs so often we'd do nothing but be depressed or afraid 24/7.

I'm pretty cold and unemotional about virtually all the political crap people scream about in the CE forum - my view is most of it (e.g. taxes) sorts itself out precisely because the nation is so split that we just swing back and forth and the damage from either side's take is thereby limited over time. It's a great big stupid game where neither side ever has much of an advantage for long so neither side can ever fully implement their stupid ideological ideas. And the very few smart ideas can eventually work their way through the system and then stick because they're products of compromise and cooperation that, while imperfect, are at least somewhat sensible.

But where children are involved and harmed, that's where I lose my sense of detachment. I'm emotionally invested in figuring out a way to protect children.

The problem in this country is that law enforcement hasn't figured out how to stop the flood of illegal guns that find their way into the hands of criminals. That inescapable fact hovers over every discussion on gun control. I'm unwilling to take away law-abiding individual's right to arm themselves in defense against those criminals. It's a mindset gap. Some people are willing to let the government (aka the police) protect them 24/7. Some people just don't think that way (including me) and wish to be more self-reliant given the obvious, oft-proven, impossibility of the police protecting us all 24/7.

I can live with NJ's restrictions which are mostly reasonable for NJ. And if other states, w/less stringent gun laws than NJ, decide to adopt laws closer to what NJ has, fine. But in the meantime, there are numerous things that can be done. And numerous things that are being done but must be improved upon. And there's no excuse for not doing those things as the achievable ones don't materially interfere with anybody's individual rights.

The nation should focus on the low-hanging fruit with big bang for the buck (awful pun, I know). Gun bans are far from low-hanging fruit, legislatively and judicially. Fixing it so it's very hard for someone to get at the kids in schools is low hanging fruit. These are our children; it's worth more than a few bucks to add many more cameras and sensors, to harden access points to schools. etc.

Not saying people shouldn't work to implement better gun control in states where there isn't enough. Just saying it's not realistically low hanging fruit at all. So while people work on it, let's get going with improvements that are lower hanging fruit.

But if NJ's laws work- I think everyone here agrees on that- why not have them on a national scale? Who would they be taking away from?

For example...if the shooters in Uvalde and Buffalo had to get sign off from a friend or family member before a purchase...seems likely those could have been halted.

NJ also provides a microcosm of the national issue you're talking about with illegal guns. For decades Virginia was the main place guns found in crimes committed in NJ originated. It's proof you basically have to strengthen every link in the chain. Once Virginia imposed stronger laws, all of a sudden North Carolina shot up.

If criminals had to go through more hoops...they'd eventually be frustrated. If you had 50 states with NJ's standards they'd have to go to Canada (even harder) and Mexico (possible, but extremely unlikely for 18 year old nutbags).
 
Oct 17, 2007
69,704
47,622
0
Why don’t the Libs here talk about bail reform, DA’s and the court system? Silence is approval of what is happening in Dem cities.

"Dem cities" like Jacksonville...which has 3x the murder rate of NYC and San Fran...or the top 10 states for gun violence being nearly all red?

Which DAs refused to charge the Uvalde and Buffalo shooters?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BossNJ and RUboston
Oct 17, 2007
69,704
47,622
0
Seems to me the "libs" on this issue are the ones willing to make compromises and concessions, whereas the other side is basically deflect, dig in heels and, now, fake compromise.

On this issue? On basically all of them...and on almost all of them, the country is in accord,. but the crazed system we have allowed the minority to obstruct...on this board, in Congress, you name it...
 
  • Like
Reactions: BossNJ and RUboston
Oct 17, 2007
69,704
47,622
0
Here is an article reporting favorable on NJ's bail reform. It mentions one criticism that some percentage of those released reoffend while out on no bail. Since the majority of offenses are drug possession charges I for one am not overly concerned with an addict being arrested again for possession. Violent offenders are not being released in NJ


So NJ has bail reform

And NJ has strict gun control

And NJ has among the lowest rates of crime and gun deaths?

Almost like gun control and bail reform works?

What's that...while Philly has shootings....Camden has actually gotten safer the past few years after they also reformed their police department?

And in Camden in 2020, the police and protesters marched together calling for an end to civilians dying in the police's hands?

Weird, a model most of us here live in...who'd have thunk
 
  • Like
Reactions: BossNJ and RUboston
Oct 17, 2007
69,704
47,622
0
He is a public sector unionist. Government is his religion.

No, government is religion for the people trying to ban:

Abortion
Weed
CRT
Books
Ubers to Planned Parenthood
Twitter and other social media banning people
Businesses checking for vaccine

Among others

Oh...and then who use said government to punish people who have the temerity to use their First Amendment rights to oppose the party of ban everything except guns
 

mildone_rivals

Heisman
Dec 19, 2011
55,607
51,272
0
But if NJ's laws work- I think everyone here agrees on that- why not have them on a national scale? Who would they be taking away from?

For example...if the shooters in Uvalde and Buffalo had to get sign off from a friend or family member before a purchase...seems likely those could have been halted.

NJ also provides a microcosm of the national issue you're talking about with illegal guns. For decades Virginia was the main place guns found in crimes committed in NJ originated. It's proof you basically have to strengthen every link in the chain. Once Virginia imposed stronger laws, all of a sudden North Carolina shot up.

If criminals had to go through more hoops...they'd eventually be frustrated. If you had 50 states with NJ's standards they'd have to go to Canada (even harder) and Mexico (possible, but extremely unlikely for 18 year old nutbags).
NJ's laws work for certain types of ordinary gun violence. There is no conclusive proof that it works to prevent mass shootings. I've seen no conclusive proof that anything we can do will prevent mass shootings or, if we were to somehow magically be able to remove 100% of all guns from the nation, mass murders.

For the most part, I'm fine with NJ's gun laws because, again, they help strike a mostly reasonable balance between freedom to protect ourselves and some measure of societal protection. I'd tweak them a bit, though, because they go just a bit too far in terms of what we can do to protect ourselves in our own home. For example, in a 60 year old 110 pound woman is in her home and a 6'6" 250 pound rapist enters the home, but the rapist is not carrying a gun or knife, then the woman cannot shoot the rapist without almost certainly incurring massive legal problems. The law expects that the tiny 60 year old woman can defend herself against a violent football player-sized rapist using what, pots and pans?

So NJ's laws can help make us safer in some ways and less safe in other ways. I think for sure they could be refined a bit to add even more safety, adding some sensible restrictions, removing some stupid restrictions that backfire (pun intended).

I'm 100% for making it harder for criminals to obtain their illegal firearms. But the theory that eliminating all guns owned legally by law-abiding people will somehow prevent criminals from having guns is very easily disproven. I'm pretty sure that all 50 states in the US ban fully automatic weapons. So NOBODY can legally purchase one. And yet criminals continue to obtain fully automatic weapons. Many of those illegal guns come in the same way illegal drugs do. And look how successful our nation has been at stopping that.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: BossNJ

RUschool

Heisman
Jan 23, 2004
49,921
14,007
78
NJ's laws work for certain types of ordinary gun violence. There is no conclusive proof that it works to prevent mass shootings. I've seen no conclusive proof that anything we can do will prevent mass shootings or, if we were to somehow magically be able to remove 100% of all guns from the nation, mass murders.

For the most part, I'm fine with NJ's gun laws because, again, they help strike a mostly reasonable balance between freedom to protect ourselves and some measure of societal protection. I'd tweak them a bit, though, because they go just a bit too far in terms of what we can do to protect ourselves in our own home. For example, in a 60 year old 110 pound woman is in her home and a 6'6" 250 pound rapist enters the home, but the rapist is not carrying a gun or knife, then the woman cannot shoot the rapist without almost certainly incurring massive legal problems. The law expects that the tiny 60 year old woman can defend herself against a violent football player-sized rapist using what, pots and pans?

So NJ's laws can help make us safer in some ways and less safe in other ways. I think for sure they could be refined a bit to add even more safety, adding some sensible restrictions, removing some stupid restrictions that backfire (pun intended).

I'm 100% for making it harder for criminals to obtain their illegal firearms. But the theory that eliminating all guns owned legally by law-abiding people will somehow prevent criminals from having guns is very easily disproven. I'm pretty sure that all 50 states in the US ban fully automatic weapons. So NOBODY can legally purchase one. And yet criminals continue to obtain fully automatic weapons. Many of those illegal guns come in the same way illegal drugs do. And look how successful our nation has been at stopping that.

No school shooting and home invasion shooting in NJ 2013-2019. Mostly gangs, drive by and bar/clubs.
 

RUschool

Heisman
Jan 23, 2004
49,921
14,007
78
Worst murder rates in the US

1. St Louis, Missouri
2. Baltimore, Maryland
3. Birmingham, Alabama
4. Detroit, Michigan
5. Dayton, Ohio
6. Baton Rouge, Louisiana
7. New Orleans, Louisiana
8. Kansas City, Missouri
9. Memphis, Tennessee
10. Cleveland, Ohio

Ohio, Louisiana and Missouri are the most dangerous states.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BossNJ

mildone_rivals

Heisman
Dec 19, 2011
55,607
51,272
0

No school shooting and home invasion shooting in NJ 2013-2019. Mostly gangs, drive by and bar/clubs.
First, that's a propaganda website with an obvious strong anti-gun lean. Thus, much like I'd dismiss the Catholic church as a source of objective data about abortion, I'm not seeing any particular reason to view anything posted at that website as unbiased information.

Second, even that propaganda PDF you posted says that there were 66 mass shootings in NJ in 2013-2019. And we know there are tons of them in CA which is the only state with tougher gun laws than NJ. I'm extremely glad none were school shootings, if that statistics is indeed accurate. But you're still cherry-picking stats to make one argument while ignoring other stats that don't support the broader application of the same argument. Which is disingenuous and argumentative, rather than helpful in solving the problem.

If I were to cherry pick numbers about mass shootings, then cherry picking CA and NJ combined would indicate that the state with stronger gun laws has more mass shootings. If I were to argue that to be a valid reason to eliminate all gun laws, wouldn't that be highly disingenuous of me? Or if I were to point you at WV and their number of mass shootings despite having very few gun laws, wouldn't that be disingenuous of me because of the stats in TX?

We're not going to get anywhere by cherry-picking statistics. Not for either pro or anti gun advocates. We only get to the truth by openly acknowledging and unbiasedly reviewing all relevant data.

Third, if that PDF says anything at all about home invasion shootings, I was unable to find it. So I'm not sure where you're finding stats on "home invasion shootings". And, anyway, where are the stats on home invasions period? One of our very own forum members had his NJ home invaded not all to many years back and was able to repel the criminals, without firing a shingle shot, using his shotgun. I wonder how or if that incident was captured by any statistics used by anti-gun websites. I doubt it.

Another question I always have is this... How much of the gun violence reported across the nation is illegal or unlawful gun violence? Versus lawful gun violence (e.g. someone shooting an intruder or an attacker)? There may be someone attempting to capture that subset of numbers (perhaps the NRA). But I never see a distinction between "good" and "bad" shootings when people post stats about gun violence or gun deaths.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: bac2therac

RUschool

Heisman
Jan 23, 2004
49,921
14,007
78
First, that's a propaganda website with an obvious strong anti-gun lean. Thus, much like I'd dismiss the Catholic church as a source of objective data about abortion, I'm not seeing any particular reason to view anything posted at that website as unbiased information.

Second, even that propaganda PDF you posted says that there were 66 mass shootings in NJ in 2013-2019. And we know there are tons of them in CA which is the only state with tougher gun laws than NJ. I'm extremely glad none were school shootings, if that statistics is indeed accurate. But you're still cherry-picking stats to make one argument while ignoring other stats that don't support it the broader application of the same argument. Which is disingenuous and argumentative, rather than helpful in solving the problem.

If I were to cherry pick numbers about mass shootings, then cherry picking CA and NJ combined would indicate that the state with stronger gun laws has more mass shootings. If I were to argue that to be a valid reason to eliminate all gun laws, wouldn't that be highly disingenuous of me? Or if I were to point you at WV and their number of mass shootings despite having very few gun laws, wouldn't that be disingenuous of me because of the stats in TX?

We're not going to get anywhere by cherry-picking statistics. Not for either pro or anti gun advocates. We only get to the truth by openly acknowledging and unbiasedly all relevant data.

Third, if that PDF says anything at all about home invasion shootings, I was unable to find it. So I'm not sure where you're finding stats on "home invasion shootings". And, anyway, where are the stats on home invasions period? One of our very own forum members had his NJ home invaded not all to many years back and was able to repel the criminals, without firing a shingle shot, using his shotgun. I wonder how or if that incident was captured by any statistics used by anti-gun websites. I doubt it.

Another question I always have is this... How much of the gun violence reported across the nation is illegal or unlawful gun violence? Versus lawful gun violence (e.g. someone shooting an intruder or an attacker)? There may be someone attempting to capture that subset of numbers (perhaps the NRA). But I never see a distinction between "good" and "bad" shootings when people post stats about gun violence or gun deaths.
The home invasion info is on the pdf. Mass shooting by type.
 
Last edited:

fsg2_rivals

Heisman
Apr 3, 2018
10,881
13,184
0
NJ's laws work for certain types of ordinary gun violence. There is no conclusive proof that it works to prevent mass shootings. I've seen no conclusive proof that anything we can do will prevent mass shootings or, if we were to somehow magically be able to remove 100% of all guns from the nation, mass murders.

For the most part, I'm fine with NJ's gun laws because, again, they help strike a mostly reasonable balance between freedom to protect ourselves and some measure of societal protection. I'd tweak them a bit, though, because they go just a bit too far in terms of what we can do to protect ourselves in our own home. For example, in a 60 year old 110 pound woman is in her home and a 6'6" 250 pound rapist enters the home, but the rapist is not carrying a gun or knife, then the woman cannot shoot the rapist without almost certainly incurring massive legal problems. The law expects that the tiny 60 year old woman can defend herself against a violent football player-sized rapist using what, pots and pans?

So NJ's laws can help make us safer in some ways and less safe in other ways. I think for sure they could be refined a bit to add even more safety, adding some sensible restrictions, removing some stupid restrictions that backfire (pun intended).

I'm 100% for making it harder for criminals to obtain their illegal firearms. But the theory that eliminating all guns owned legally by law-abiding people will somehow prevent criminals from having guns is very easily disproven. I'm pretty sure that all 50 states in the US ban fully automatic weapons. So NOBODY can legally purchase one. And yet criminals continue to obtain fully automatic weapons. Many of those illegal guns come in the same way illegal drugs do. And look how successful our nation has been at stopping that.

There's that strawman again, *all guns*.

Instead of just knocking it down, make it fun and blow that scarecrow up with a few tracer rounds. Just try not to set an entire forest on fire the way asshat gun zealots do 'round these parts every summer.
 

mildone_rivals

Heisman
Dec 19, 2011
55,607
51,272
0
The home invasion info is on the pdf. Mass shooting by type.
Okay, I see it. I'm skeptical that nobody was shot during a home invasion in NJ during those years. In fact, I'm pretty sure I can remember some home invasion shootings that were reported here on the forum (or in the CE board) over those years.

However, those reported home invasions might've been killings using other methods or might've not been 4 or more victims, keeping it out of the mass shooting category.

What about workplace shootings? And what are all the "unclassified" mass shootings?

Here's CA (just to back up the fact that CA has the strongest gun laws in the nation, yet clearly they have a ton of mass shootings):


Now look at WV, and all those Fs for Gifford's gun law grades. Their numbers tell a very different gun law to mass shooting story than either CAs or NJs.


I have to think population density plays a big role here. But still, CA and NJ have some similar population density areas (and also both have plenty of more rural, less dense, areas). Which confuses attempts to draw firm conclusions insofar as mass shootings go.

The point being that considering ALL the evidence objectively and it becomes harder to support a deterministic conclusion about a correlation. Not saying there is no such correlation to be found. Just saying that it is not nearly as clear (again, about mass shootings) as people might think. (Ordinary gun violence stats appear to support a much stronger gun law to lower gun violence correlation, which is basically what I was saying up a couple posts above).

I know people want this to be easier; they want a solution NOW (at least they feel that way for a little while in the immediate wake of a school shooting). But there aren't always easy answers to all challenges no matter how much we wish it were so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bac2therac

Knightmoves

Heisman
Jul 31, 2001
30,466
16,377
113
But if NJ's laws work- I think everyone here agrees on that- why not have them on a national scale? Who would they be taking away from?

For example...if the shooters in Uvalde and Buffalo had to get sign off from a friend or family member before a purchase...seems likely those could have been halted.

NJ also provides a microcosm of the national issue you're talking about with illegal guns. For decades Virginia was the main place guns found in crimes committed in NJ originated. It's proof you basically have to strengthen every link in the chain. Once Virginia imposed stronger laws, all of a sudden North Carolina shot up.

If criminals had to go through more hoops...they'd eventually be frustrated. If you had 50 states with NJ's standards they'd have to go to Canada (even harder) and Mexico (possible, but extremely unlikely for 18 year old nutbags).
Sounds good but criminals buy guns illegally on the street, not from the local gun stores.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bac2therac
May 11, 2010
72,487
56,950
0
Worst murder rates in the US

1. St Louis, Missouri
2. Baltimore, Maryland
3. Birmingham, Alabama
4. Detroit, Michigan
5. Dayton, Ohio
6. Baton Rouge, Louisiana
7. New Orleans, Louisiana
8. Kansas City, Missouri
9. Memphis, Tennessee
10. Cleveland, Ohio

Ohio, Louisiana and Missouri are the most dangerous states.
Wrong

the Dem cities in those states are dangerous
 
Status
Not open for further replies.