brassplyer said:
This speaks to your rational, objectively factual take on things.
Yes, Republican lawmakers stand on the street corners handing out guns in Philly, Chicago, Baltimore, DC etc. which is clearly the explanation as to why their strict gun laws don't work. It's absolutely *not* because of a high percentage of those willing to commit crime.
There have always been, and always will be people willing to commit crime.
Okay - which doesn't change that other than situations where someone doesn't realize something is a crime someone has to be willing to commit crime for a crime to occur. I doubt that anyone is going to inadvertently do a drive-by, carjacking, hold up a liquor store, rob someone at an ATM, shoot someone in a gas station parking lot because they're pissed off, etc. etc.
Regulating guns less than we regulate cars, antibiotics, beer, etc is beyond ridiculous.
Really? There are a number of states that allow illegals to have a driver's license. While there are restrictions on who can legally drive a car, as far as I can determine there's no such thing as a "prohibited possessor" when it comes to ownership of a car or any obligation for a car seller commercial or private to verify someone's criminal or immigration status.
On the other hand there are laws related to prohibited possessors of firearms regardless of the circumstances of how one obtains it. There are -0- states where it's legal for someone who knows they're an illegal alien to own or possess a firearm, there are specific laws related to whether a convicted felon can legally own a firearm. It's always illegal to steal a gun. Using a gun fired or not in the commission of a crime generally enhances the penalty for the crime. AFAIK it doesn't make a difference whether the gun is even loaded or an actual firearm as opposed to a toy, pellet gun, etc.
Now you may not be aware of this - there are people who deliberately don't obey the law. When someone knowingly commits a gun crime 100% of the time it comes down to whether one is willing to knowingly commit a crime. I realize that personal responsibility and holding people accountable for their actions just aren't part of your lexicon.
I haven't seen you explain how Republicans are "flooding the streets with guns". Curiously I can't find a single instance of where any criminal got a gun from a Republican lawmaker who was standing on the street handing out guns. I can't find any instance of a Republican lawmaker who's come out in favor of crime and criminality. I do find examples of Democrat DAs who go easy on criminals - it's interesting that high-crime cities like St. Louis, Philly, Chicago, Baltimore, DC etc. are run by Democrats.
Elsewhere you mentioned "Wild West" scenarios - interesting that all those Democrat crime cities are a lot closer to that than Florida that has Constitutional Carry. You've made it clear that it's your fantasy that Florida becomes a wasteland of lawlessness just so you can rub your hands together and gleefully say "See? See?!?" but it remains true that those who weren't predisposed to violent crime before still aren't.
What do you think about making it universal that when someone committing a crime is shot by someone defending themselves or someone else from said criminal that no litigation can be brought by any party against the person that shot the criminal. I word it that way because of a particularly insane case I'm aware of where a woman was saved from being murdered by her ex-husband by a good Samaritan with a gun and *she* sued the good Samaritan who saved her life over her lost alimony income. The case was dismissed but it never should have been allowed to be filed in the first place.
"
