Tyranny of the ATF

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

what a bane free roaming, gun toting recitivists are.

but but but criminals aren't legally allowed to have guns

[Suppressed Poet]

Part of the prison overcrowding problem is the reluctance of states to use the death penalty due to the ridiculous number of legal challenges to every option for execution available. Someone is sentenced to death under the laws of the state should be put down, not given lifetime incarceration. I'm really surprised you're arguing community outreach and drug diversion for non violent crimes, that is one of the issues that plagues major Metropolitan areas, especially in California. What stops a person from committing crime it there is no punishment that makes a lasting impression?

A hundred pound woman protecting herself from a rapist, really? Provided she has enough awareness of the impending crime to draw a firearm and use it to protect herself, what will she do if the criminal also had a gun and disabled her first? You speak of overwhelming force as a means of diversion, but that is only effective so long as it can be deployed effectively. We play a game with very effective ambush mechanics, people employ the same subterfuge or stalking to keep their victims unaware before they strike. A gun out of hand is no use at all, and just as likely it's going to wind up in the possession of the assailant.

A society where criminals are locked up, those who are reformed actually reformed, and the fear of retribution so great that non mentally imbalanced people will think twice. That is an ideal society. Ours is suffering from drug addiction, overtly generous welfare benefits going beyond basic food, shelter and health-care, and a system of justice being neutered by the privileged few who don't understand what a bane free roaming, gun toting recitivists are.

I’m pro death penalty for the most heinous of crimes, but I don’t think that has anything to do with prison overcrowding. Only a small amount of people are sentenced to death. I hear you on the legal challenges, but not sure what alternative there is. People are afforded those legal challenges for good reason, and we as a society should be absolutely certain that irreversible action of a death sentence is justified.

I want to be clear that when I say alternatives to incarceration for non-violent drug offenders I mean just that. We need an alternative to prison and the only thing in scope is truly non-violent drug offenses. We must enforce laws and prosecute criminals in other crimes, especially violence. Community outreach programs are not a substitute for law enforcement, but they are a great tool to make positive changes.

Going back to the 100 pound woman vs the 300 pound man, you are correct there is no sure fire guarantee that she will prevail, criminals get the advantage of the element of surprise, and criminals have weapons too. A firearm and adequate training gives her the best chance to defend herself in suv a situation though. Why would you want to deny a person the best tool for the job to protect themselves? I just don’t understand that line of thought. Citizens that choose to take accountability for their own defense and those of others should be empowered to do so, not hindered by our own government.

[Suppressed Poet]

[Seran]

I’m pro death penalty for the most heinous of crimes, but I don’t think that has anything to do with prison overcrowding. Only a small amount of people are sentenced to death. I hear you on the legal challenges, but not sure what alternative there is. People are afforded those legal challenges for good reason, and we as a society should be absolutely certain that irreversible action of a death sentence is justified.

I want to be clear that when I say alternatives to incarceration for non-violent drug offenders I mean just that. We need an alternative to prison and the only thing in scope is truly non-violent drug offenses. We must enforce laws and prosecute criminals in other crimes, especially violence. Community outreach programs are not a substitute for law enforcement, but they are a great tool to make positive changes.

Indefinite legal challenges are the problem, involving tens of millions of dollars to the taxpayers to re-litigate decided issues over and over again, regardless of merit. I believe that to be a travesty of justice. 2,331 people on death row as of 01/2023, at a $60k-$70k cost per inmate? That is money which could be better spent.

I like the idea of community intervention, in theory. In reality, is is the responsibility of the family to bear the cost of wayward individuals, or society as a whole to subsidize their misadventures? If it's the latter, then make subsidized rehabilitation a one time drug diversion program with a suspended sentence. If they fail, stay on incarceration is lifted and they're left to clean up behind bars. Community still pays for it, but the individual also faces just punishment for their lack of personal responsibility.

Going back to the 100 pound woman vs the 300 pound man, you are correct there is no sure fire guarantee that she will prevail, criminals get the advantage of the element of surprise, and criminals have weapons too. A firearm and adequate training gives her the best chance to defend herself in suv a situation though. Why would you want to deny a person the best tool for the job to protect themselves? I just don’t understand that line of thought. Citizens that choose to take accountability for their own defense and those of others should be empowered to do so, not hindered by our own government.

There is no reason to believe that three hundred pound man wouldn't have just as easy a time using a firearm as that hundred pound woman, only he has the element of surprise and likely premeditation. In that scenario, woman suffers and the man now has two guns. In the scenario where she has adequate time to defend herself and her assailant isn't equally as armed, yeah being armed is a benefit. However, reality shows us that far more unequal situations occur where an assailant causes harm by nature of being armed.

I would that anyone be able to protect themselves from evil, but the scenario outside of a home where barriers can allow adequate time to arm and prepare, personal armaments are FAR less likely to be overwhelming benefit. Universal right to home protection, absolutely. Open carry with a license, by non criminal people? Sure. Imo, open carry is more likely to deter an assailant. Unlicensed concealed carry, no.

Using my above rational, if we have an open carry society, I would want criminals who arm and harm to face sentences that are so heavy handed that others will think twice about doing it. For those mentally unstable people, a universal background check, red flag system, and waiting period for first time buyers I believe would deter their armament.

[Methais]

Indefinite legal challenges are the problem, involving tens of millions of dollars to the taxpayers to re-litigate decided issues over and over again, regardless of merit. I believe that to be a travesty of justice. 2,331 people on death row as of 01/2023, at a $60k-$70k cost per inmate? That is money which could be better spent.

I like the idea of community intervention, in theory. In reality, is is the responsibility of the family to bear the cost of wayward individuals, or society as a whole to subsidize their misadventures? If it's the latter, then make subsidized rehabilitation a one time drug diversion program with a suspended sentence. If they fail, stay on incarceration is lifted and they're left to clean up behind bars. Community still pays for it, but the individual also faces just punishment for their lack of personal responsibility.



There is no reason to believe that three hundred pound man wouldn't have just as easy a time using a firearm as that hundred pound woman, only he has the element of surprise and likely premeditation. In that scenario, woman suffers and the man now has two guns. In the scenario where she has adequate time to defend herself and her assailant isn't equally as armed, yeah being armed is a benefit. However, reality shows us that far more unequal situations occur where an assailant causes harm by nature of being armed.

I would that anyone be able to protect themselves from evil, but the scenario outside of a home where barriers can allow adequate time to arm and prepare, personal armaments are FAR less likely to be overwhelming benefit. Universal right to home protection, absolutely. Open carry with a license, by non criminal people? Sure. Imo, open carry is more likely to deter an assailant. Unlicensed concealed carry, no.

Using my above rational, if we have an open carry society, I would want criminals who arm and harm to face sentences that are so heavy handed that others will think twice about doing it. For those mentally unstable people, a universal background check, red flag system, and waiting period for first time buyers I believe would deter their armament.

Confirmed that Seran wants women to be defenseless against rapists.

Don't be mad at women because none of them will let you touch them.

[Suppressed Poet]

There is no reason to believe that three hundred pound man wouldn't have just as easy a time using a firearm as that hundred pound woman, only he has the element of surprise and likely premeditation. In that scenario, woman suffers and the man now has two guns. In the scenario where she has adequate time to defend herself and her assailant isn't equally as armed, yeah being armed is a benefit. However, reality shows us that far more unequal situations occur where an assailant causes harm by nature of being armed.

I would that anyone be able to protect themselves from evil, but the scenario outside of a home where barriers can allow adequate time to arm and prepare, personal armaments are FAR less likely to be overwhelming benefit. Universal right to home protection, absolutely. Open carry with a license, by non criminal people? Sure. Imo, open carry is more likely to deter an assailant. Unlicensed concealed carry, no.

Using my above rational, if we have an open carry society, I would want criminals who arm and harm to face sentences that are so heavy handed that others will think twice about doing it. For those mentally unstable people, a universal background check, red flag system, and waiting period for first time buyers I believe would deter their armament.

We’re getting off track here. There are countless examples throughout history where a weaker armed good guy prevented death and/or serious bodily harm from one or more stronger assailants. I don’t think I really need to explain why having a gun helps to level the playing field.

I have a license to carry but it’s a relic of the past. If you are not a convicted felon, fugitive of justice, or proven to be mentally unfit to posses a firearm it’s not the government’s job to interfere or dictate what firearms a person chooses.

There are pros and cons to open carry vs concealed carry:

Open carry is typically much more comfortable and you can typically draw much faster. It may deter criminal activity as you pointed out, but it also makes you a target. Thugs love stealing firearms and if they are committed to their crime they are going to take out the armed person first. In addition, it’s s reality of the world we live in that some people absolutely freak out if they see an everyday citizen open carrying a firearm in public places. You really should have a good active retention holster (like what cops have) so that you are not easily disarmed. There are countless videos of criminals walking up to someone open carrying with a simple passive retention holster, pulling the gun out from the holster, and running off or worse using it against that person.

Concealed carry is less comfortable and typically slower on the draw. You can’t conceal carry a rifle (well they have folding ones that fit in a backpack, but generally speaking). It often gives the person carrying concealed the element of surprise. The whole idea of concealed carry as a deterrent to crime is that you never know if an ordinary citizen is armed or not. It doesn’t freak out Karens at the grocery store.

I choose to conceal carry, but believe either is viable. Let people decide for themselves if they want to conceal carry, open carry, or not at all.

[kutter]

While I am not a fan of open carry, for the reasons already stated, if someone is open carrying and has trained to do so, they are a pretty major deterrent to anyone with nefarious ideas. I would prefer someone that trains in open carry over someone that does not train in concealed. To Poet's point, if one is going to open carry then you MUST use an active retention holster, my go to is a GLS holster from Safariland. I have some of their ALS holsters and for range training they are just fine but I do not even have to think about releasing the pistol with a GLS if my grip is correct.

[Seran]

Second Amendment rights.. protecting your ability to shoot someone for a parking place.

Brooklyn parking dispute leads to double shooting at Home Depot

A dispute over a parking spot in the central Brooklyn Home Depot erupted in gunfire, leaving a woman shot in the head and her boyfriend badly wounded, according to witnesses and police.

The shooting took place in the parking lot of the hardware store’s Bedford-Stuyvesant location shortly after noon Saturday, according to the NYPD.

“The guy pulls on the side of them, he starts shooting at them,” Stacee Glenn, 40, said. Glenn said the male victim shouted, “I gave him the parking spot!”

The couple –– believed to be in their mid-20s –– raced out of the parking lot in their white Hyndai Sonata after the shooting, stopping several blocks away at the intersection of Nostrand and Myrtle Aves. to call for help.

The woman was slumped over and nonresponsive.

“He stopped and said ‘my girlfriend and I had been shot’,” Glenn said. “I guess he was trying to bring her to the hospital.”

Yadelyn Pena, 14, told the Daily News she was outside the Duane Reade on Nostrand and Myrtle when the car came to a stop.

“I guess he realized he was too late, so he jumped outside the car and called for help,” she said, adding that the man had wounds to his leg and his back.

“I was like, what’s the matter? What’s wrong? And he was like, ‘my girlfriend, look,’” Pena said.

“And I look in the car and there’s blood dripping from her head.” she added. “I saw her.”

“The guy in the parking lot – he wanted my parking spot,” Pena recalled the man saying. “I gave it to him and he started shooting at us!”

Three bullet holes could be seen in the Hyundai’s driver’s side door, which was facing the wrong direction on Nostrand Ave. Outside the front passenger door, a brown paper Home Depot b

https://news.yahoo.com/brooklyn-park...185600441.html

[Parkbandit]

Second Amendment rights.. protecting your ability to shoot someone for a parking place.

That's exactly why we have the Second Amendment... I mean, if you are a full blow retard.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Second Amendment rights.. protecting your ability to shoot someone for a parking place.

All told from one perspective with literally no facts to back it up. Could be crazy guy with a gun, or more than likely, something happened that escalated to an armed person teaching two idiots FAFO.