Saturday, September 17, 2016
On Guns in Missouri
This is floating around on the internet today, this week, after the state legislature passed their ignorant, very loose gun law.
I imagine not enough Missourians are aware of the statistic in that 2nd panel. It's true. Our murder rate did increase. I only hope that last frame doesn't come to pass but feel pretty certain it will.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
16 comments:
The graphic here is inaccurate, permits were not eliminated in Missouri until 2016.
In 2014, we had Ferguson. There's a (false) narrative that the police are under physical attack, and a likely true narrative that active policing is increasingly likely to get an officer fired than promoted. I don't know the stats in Ferguson, but all indications are that city police nationwide are doing less, and criminals are more likely to get away with violence. Violence is up in Chicago as well, after Illinois got concealed carry--but how many of those crimes are committed by people carrying legally? (I'm not saying that Ferguson police are decent, the whole justice system there appears to be badly broken)
Do you have details of what actually happened with repealing background checks--can someone now walk into a store in Missouri and buy a Glock without a check?
Do you have a theory on how requiring permits to legally carry reduces crime? It doesn't make much sense to me that just carrying a piece of paper changes anything.
What should happen when someone in a shooting claims self defense, and there is no evidence that they have committed any crime? How is this significantly different under stand your ground laws?
So often gun control activists can't answer these questions on their own. It's like a variation on the old bumper sticker, "Bloomberg said it, I believe it, that settles it".
Actually, the graphic isn't incorrect, as this article from The New York Times in December of 2015 shows.
In Missouri, Fewer Gun Restrictions and More Gun Killings
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/22/health/in-missouri-fewer-gun-restrictions-and-more-gun-killings.html
As of our new laws, one will still have some background checks at regular, commercial gun stores but famously, there are plenty of loopholes for purchasing weapons with no check at all, across the nation.
It's not a "theory on how requiring permits to legally carry reduces crime." It's statiscical.
Right-to-carry gun laws linked to increase in violent crime
http://news.stanford.edu/2014/11/14/donohue-guns-study-111414/
The facts are, more weapons translates into more shootings, more killings, more death and even more killing of police.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/
"What should happen when someone in a shooting claims self defense, and there is no evidence that they have committed any crime?" Like anything and everything else, it should go to court and be tried. It's as close as we get to justice.
Questions answered.
You're welcome.
"Like anything and everything else, it should go to court and be tried. It's as close as we get to justice"
Every shooting should be thoroughly investigated, period. Like any potential crime, where the evidence indicates the shooting was illegal the shooter should be arrested and tried even if the shooter claims self defense. When the evidence does not indicate a crime, the shooter should not be arrested or tried.
And somehow you have a problem with that.
I don't know how you came to that conclusion but enjoy.
Your answers are almost never complete. I believe that is intentional because you don't actually know enough about the subject, and want to leave maneuvering room.
Stand Your Ground laws typically have 2 main parts.
1. Switches self defense claims from affirmative defense to a rebuttable presumption of innocence--in other words, someone doesn't have to give up their 5th amendment rights to claim self defense, but if the evidence is against them they can still be arrested and tried.
2. Criminals can't sue their victims when the victim's defense was lawful.
What am I missing? If you won't say what parts of Stand Your Ground you object to, why wouldn't I think it's the main part of the law?
Ah, now I remember. I'd forgotten that when you don't get the response/answer you like, you accuse the person with whom you're discussing of either not knowing or "squirming" or some such.
The part of "stand your ground" laws I/lots of us (who care about justice) don't like?
It would be the part where the person who ends up killing the other, the one with the gun, like George Zimmerman, can pull out a weapon at will, shoot and either wound or kill the other (as with Trayvon Martin), say they "felt threatened" and literally get away with murder when not resorting to the weapon, say minding one's own business or having a conversation would have done, in its place.
It's the murdering of an American for no reason we don't like. It's the resorting to weapons when they're utterly unnecessary we don't like.
Odd you don't get that.
Parts of the left are as attached to the idea that Stand Your Ground let Zimmerman get away with murder as parts of the right are to the Obama Birther idiocy.
The best theory I've heard that somewhat matches actual facts is that somehow Zimmerman's misunderstanding of Stand Your Ground is what lead him to confront Martin in the first place--but nobody has been able to point out the part of SYG law that let Zimmerman go free. There wasn't much argument about what was happening at the moment Zimmerman shot--he was losing a physical fight. The entire case rests on who started the physical violence. If it was Martin, traditional self defense was sufficient. If it was Zimmerman, even Stand Your Ground wouldn't get him off. The problem is with determining the facts in this case, not in applying a new law. It is entirely possible that the jury made an error, or that they were not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt--but that does not mean the law is wrong.
There are very, very few cases where Stand Your Ground makes the difference between a conviction and acquittal. Zimmerman isn't one of those cases.
That you would defend George Zimmerman says volumes.
That you can't say how Stand Your Ground set Zimmerman free says much more. You have no logic, merely faith. You are apparently not capable of defending your position on Stand Your Ground with logic because you simply don't understand the issue. Your prophets have spoken, ending the need for any independent thought from you.
Your point on discussing this or any topic isn't to discuss it but, instead, to throw as many "gotcha's" out there as you can, clearly. Each time I respond to your statement/inquiry, you come up with some other thing you say I can't answer. Now, this time it's that I can't say something about "Stand your ground" and George Zimmerman.
Because I don't agree with you, I "have no logic", simple as that.
Now, for your latest answer you insist on, your latest history lesson you demand, here you go.
How the state of Florida set Zimmerman free
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/how-the-state-florida-set-zimmerman-free
You could be engaging but instead, you're tiresome. You spew Right Wing diatribes that are already all over their websites.
You are unable to summarize your own specific objections to a law in your own words, or even extract a sentence or two of someone else's words that you'll stand behind. I don't think you really understand Stand Your Ground, I don't think you've actually read any Stand Your Ground bill or law, you just accept what your Priesthood has told you as an article of faith. "Gun people like it, so it must be evil".
And the article you point me to doesn't actually talk about any provision of Stand Your Ground. Instead it thinks that the prosecution should have quizzed Zimmerman on SYG in an attempt to make him unsympathetic with the jury. Linking like this is a tactic you use often instead of simply saying what you think. It shouldn't take any more words to explain your objection to SYG than your last comment which said nothing.
If you want me to understand what you object to in SYG, tell me what you object to. Shouting Zimmerman! at me isn't going to make me understand.
It doesn't matter how I respond, you're never satisfied with the answer.
I find you tedious.
I didn't shout "Zimmerman!" at you in any way.
Here's the problem with "Stand your ground" laws:
Homicides soar in states with 'Stand Your Ground' laws
https://www.facingsouth.org/2013/09/homicides-soar-in-states-with-stand-your-ground-la.html
More cut and paste from a biased Bloomberg group, you still can't say what part of the law you think causes the problem of Bloomberg's unlikely claims.
The part of this law, the part of any law or action, that causes the problem is the proliferation of guns.
More guns, statistically, is proven over time and states and nations and the world, to cause more shootings, more killings and death, simple as that. "Stand your ground" laws are yet one more way guns can be and are used, instead of courage and intelligence and responsibility and even just adulthood, to possibly settle differences, if any.
Guns are for killing. Claiming that more guns will keep us safe is exactly the same as saying that nuclear proliferation makes the world safer.
And statistics bear that out, yes.
Post a Comment