“When she tried to get away, he shot her once, then there was more exchange between them," Shultz said. "Mr. Brock was at some point injured to his head, and he shot Ms. Hall a second time. There was more conversation, and then he shot her a third time. Only after he shot her a third time did he then make contact with authorities to report the incident."
They were asked how gun laws could be improved after a teenager, who people called “school shooter” because of his history of rape threats and animal abuse, bought 2 semi-automatic rifles from a gun company that targets edgelords and used them to mutilate a room of children beyond recognition. Their response was “make them even more permissive”.
If they they oppose denying firearms to someone with that many red flags, they’re definitely not going support denying firearms to someone for being old, unable to control their emotions and probably racist.
I’m in the “pro gun crowd” and I, and many of us, absolutely do not think he should own a gun. Many of us very much support keeping firearms out of the hands of people with a history of violent tendencies and torturing animals. What are you talking about?? That’s like, one of the few things that the “pro gun crowd” and “gun grabbers” actually agree on.
Vote for increasingly tight background checks, micro stamping, and other solutions that don’t rely on the delusional and childish belief that only the batshit crazy police should have guns? What are you doing about it? I’m gonna take a shot in the dark here and guess voting for the public policy version of a miracle cure. How responsible.
Vote for increasingly tight background checks, micro stamping, and other solutions
Cool, sounds good.
childish belief that only the batshit crazy police should have guns
Your guns have done absolutely nothing to bring police reform. Can you name even a single person in the last 20 years who has shot their way out of a confrontation with “batshit crazy police”?
It’s a marketing strategy to sell guns to people who don’t trust the police, not an actual solution to the problem. In fact, pull that gun on a cop that wants to kill you and they’ll be thrilled that your murder won’t even be investigated.
What are you doing about it? I’m gonna take a shot in the dark here and guess voting for the public policy version of a miracle cure.
No miracles needed, just policy that has worked the world over and enough time for it to become effective.
It’s funny though, despite you being such an ally of gun control, I’ve never seen you among the pro-gun crowd accusing their solution of being “delusional” or a “miracle cure” when they’ve claimed “we just need to elimate poverty and permanently and completely cure every man, woman and child of mental illnesses, even the ones that don’t want treatment, so its safe to sell them guns”.
Oh well, I’m sure you’ll get your chance after the next mass shooting.
“Policy that has worked the world over” conveniently ignoring that the countries you’re obliquely referring to are not the ones without guns, but the ones with meaningful social mobility and instead you’re pretending that the stronger correlation is guns. Across time and space, low social mobility among young men, specifically, correlates with rates of violence. But instead of trying to actually address the difficult issue here you’re just going to click those pretty little red shoes together three times and wish for a single policy that solves this extremely complex problem. Just unbelievably childish and naïve. Nothing but virtue signaling, hollier than thou bullshit.
“Policy that has worked the world over” conveniently ignoring that the countries you’re obliquely referring to are not the ones without guns
Very few countries have no guns and presenting gun control this way makes it clear that your information about gun control comes from pro-gun groups.
but the ones with meaningful social mobility and instead you’re pretending that the stronger correlation is guns
This changes nothing. You’re just admitting that the current gun laws in America are inadequate for current state of society.
you’re just going to click those pretty little red shoes together three times and wish for a single policy
This only holds up if I do only support a single policy. Feel free to name any progressive policy aimed at addressing wealth inequality or access to healthcare and I’ll openly state I support it.
But the pro-gun community is a cult that insists the current gun laws are a sacred text that must never be changed (except to make worse). At best you’re saying “we should address every factor except one”.
Just unbelievably childish and naïve
Your solution is “we should just not have criminals any more” so you’re not in any position to call someone childish and naive. The closest it ever comes to reality is “we should reduce crime to a point where gun violence can be swept under the rug”.
Nothing but virtue signaling, hollier than thou bullshit.
That would still make me a better person than a colossally self-absorbed gun owner insisting we sacrifice our lives and build them a utopia beyond what the world has ever seen, all so they’re not inconvenienced buying a gun for their hobby.
Thanks for sharing your special snowflake status with us but generalizing groups of people is the only way to discuss them and I’m not going to let pro-gun bullshit slide just because I haven’t kissed every gun owner on the mouth.
The lobby groups, politicians and online communities that represent you do not agree that “some people should not own firearms”, with some of them even advocating guns for felons. It’s the fairest possible generalization I can make.
If you don’t want to be associated with that, take it up with them. Hell, send me the link as proof that you actually mean it, instead of it being hollow, worthless virtue signalling designed to derail arguments.
Wow. You really lean all-in to your handle, don’t you?
After all these months, I really think your account is designed to create division and not actually promote a decent cause. Honestly. You are hurting your cause more than helping it.
Look at your last comment as an example. You default to name calling and broad stereotypes instead of making valid points that might convince me of something. TBH, it’s more in the style of a Russian troll rather than someone who is sane and simply pissed off.
Even most hardcore, redneck gun owners I know are not as vile as you can be and some of those fuckers are seriously off their rockers. I would feel safer around them rather than you, actually. That’s not to be taken as an insult.
After all these months, I really think your account is designed to create division and not actually promote a decent cause. Honestly. You are hurting your cause more than helping it
We’ve seen how much weight the pro-gun community gives your opinions so who cares if you’re convinced? Besides, gun owners have been politely pandered to for 20 years and it’s done nothing but dig us a deeper hole.
Look at your last comment as an example. You default to name calling and broad stereotypes instead of making valid points that might convince me of something. TBH, it’s more in the style of a Russian troll rather than someone who is sane and simply pissed off.
I am deeply offended at how you have generalized Russian trolls. You should be ashamed of yourself for talking about them as a group without knowing the argument style of each and every one of them first. Until you’ve accomplished that impossible task, I’m just going to dismiss everything you say using this deeply manipulative out.
Even most hardcore, redneck gun owners I know are not as vile as you can be and some of those fuckers are seriously off their rockers. I would feel safer around them rather than you, actually. That’s not to be taken as an insult.
Love it. You’re openly admitting there’s gun owners in your life who are “seriously off their rocker” rednecks but you’re going to support them anyway because some guy on the internet hurt your feelings (and that’s more important than other people’s lives)
We both know you were always going to support the gun owners no matter what I said, you’re just doing the “it’s your fault I’m a bad person so you should change” tactic beloved by domestic abusers the world over.
You are making some wild assumptions, but whatever.
Russian trolls follow a very distinct pattern and it’s very similar to yours, actually. Insult, insinuate and make broad general assumptions about what other people think. It’s not generalizing or stereotyping as much as it is pattern matching.
You are basically babbling and twisting comments, so conversation is pointless. Honestly, I thought I had blocked you months ago. K bai.
Because it was set many decades ago and never adjusted for inflation.
(I haven’t bothered to check if that’s true for this specific case, but it’s a pervasive problem throughout the US legal code so I’m hazarding a guess.)
I really hope that was a typo and they meant AND a payment of $15k because someone who posted $200k bail shouldn’t have a problem finding $15k to get out of a murder charge.
So yes a typo. The typo they are referring to isn’t the amount. It’s the fact that the article says the fine can stand in place of the prison sentence. Your link specifies the fine is “In addition” which means they get jail AND a fine.
How is the person who sent the Uber not being arrested for murder? “Banned from Uber” doesn’t seem sufficient.
If they can’t be prosecuted because they are from outside the country, then Uber needs to be held accountable for taking an order from outside the country and sending out a car in Ohio.
It’s probably just going to take longer. Internet crime is FBI jurisdiction because it crosses state lines. It’s not as quick as picking up the pistol-holding, 81-year-old in his driveway.
Before this, I thought internet scams extorting the elderly were as low as they could go. Scammers hit bottom and rent a jackhammer.
Add comment