82 shot, 14 fatalities, over the 4th of July weekend

[fredtoast]

(07-10-2015, 01:04 AM)bfine32 Wrote: But don't we give a license to operate them to folks that are here illegally?

Yes exactly.  That is to keep them from escaping liability for any damage they may cause while driving.

[*bfine32*]

(07-10-2015, 01:11 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes exactly.  That is to keep them from escaping liability for any damage they may cause while driving.

So you are OK with giving them a gun license? You know, just in case they cause any damage while shooting. 

[fredtoast]

(07-10-2015, 01:20 AM)bfine32 Wrote: So you are OK with giving them a gun license? You know, just in case they cause any damage while shooting. 

If they want to own a gun it would have to be registered just like everyone else.  Do you think illegal immigrants should not have to register the cars they own here?  Why should they be treated any differently than everyone else?  I can't even grasp the logic behind making them exempt from the laws everyone else has to abide by.

[*bfine32*]

(07-10-2015, 01:48 AM)fredtoast Wrote: If they want to own a gun it would have to be registered just like everyone else.  Do you think illegal immigrants should not have to register the cars they own here?  Why should they be treated any differently than everyone else?  I can't even grasp the logic behind making them exempt from the laws everyone else has to abide by.

I am absolutely speechless.

[fredtoast]

(07-10-2015, 01:53 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I am absolutely speechless.

So you would exclude illegal immigrants from having to register their cars or guns and allow them to drive without a license?

What is the logic behind that?  Why have laws to protect the public and not require immigrants to abide by them?

[*Nately120*]

(07-10-2015, 12:17 AM)bfine32 Wrote: ..and I think the purpose of the OP is to show "strict regulations", which Chicago has, is not working. 

When will folks understand if a criminal wants a gun they can get a gun?

When will people understand that less gun control laws lead to less accountability for gun owners and more accessibility for criminals to get guns?  Where do people think these criminals get guns?

[XenoMorph]

(07-10-2015, 11:57 AM)Nately120 Wrote: When will people understand that less gun control laws lead to less accountability for gun owners and more accessibility for criminals to get guns?  Where do people think these criminals get guns?

But as a criminal would you be more or less willing to pull your gun on someone if you thought everyone else in the area had one

[*Nately120*]

(07-10-2015, 01:12 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: But as a criminal would you be more or less willing to pull your gun on someone if you thought everyone else in the area had one

I'd be less likely, but the fact that heavily armed gang violence is a hallmark of the culture indicates that having a gun doesn't necessarily mean you won't have someone pull a gun on you.

Personally, if I'm a criminal and someone probably has a gun then I just shoot first or faster.  I'm not sure why I'm doing this in this scenario, but that's what I'd do.  I mean, look at recent shooting deaths via the police or citizens on young black males.  The fact is people assume they are armed so what do they do (criminal or no)?  They shoot first and shoot faster.

"I thought he had a gun" is a pretty standard defense in this country, isn't it? Maybe if more people have guns more unarmed people get shot because "Most people have guns." Who knows.

There have been psychological tests done to replicate the "would you shoot" reaction and in multiple cases, while this wasn't about "does the person have a gun" specifically, people were faster to shoot armed black males and slower to NOT shoot unarmed black males.  Basically, "does this person have a gun?" might not lead to "should I just walk away and go watch TV" so much as "I'd better get off the first shot."

Me?  I'm more likely stay away from someone who has a gun, whether I, or he is a criminal or not...so if everyone were like me I guess it would work.

[*bfine32*]

(07-10-2015, 11:57 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Where do people think these criminals get guns?

Illegal methods; however, I'm sure that will change if we pass another law.

Why is gun-related violence not significantly lower in Chicago?

[*Nately120*]

(07-10-2015, 03:51 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Illegal methods; however, I'm sure that will change if we pass another law.

Why is gun-related violence not significantly lower in Chicago?

Illegal methods such as....?

And gun-related violence is high in Chicago because of an inordinate amount of gang violence which you could magically teleport anywhere in the country and they'd still be shooting each other.  But given your logic the fact that everyone on the southside of Chicago is armed should make them safer, right?

[*bfine32*]

(07-10-2015, 04:05 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Illegal methods such as....?

Acquiring guns not registered to them. So more laws directed toward registration would probably be pretty ineffective.

Nately120 Wrote:And gun-related violence is high in Chicago because of an inordinate amount of gang violence which you could magically teleport anywhere in the country and they'd still be shooting each other. But given your logic the fact that everyone on the southside of Chicago is armed should make them safer, right?

Nope my logic is you could "magically teleport" Chicago's stricter gun regulations to any big city and see virtually no change.
 
 
I don't blame you for making up my logic. Folks that are not qualified to own firearms should not. I am just not so naive that I think passing a law will change it.
 
I think the answer is stricter punishment. Commit a felony with a firearm and not be a registered owner; throw away the key.

[*Nately120*]

(07-10-2015, 04:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Acquiring guns no registered to them. So more laws directed toward registration would probably be pretty ineffective.

Right, illegal guns start off as legal guns.  I buy a guy, I sell it at 3x value to a criminal.  Does anyone check to see if I do this?  Where did the gun go?  Ida know, it was stolen or lost.  Who cares?  Give me another gun to sell.

(07-10-2015, 04:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nope my logic is you could "magically teleport" Chicago's stricter gun regulations to any big city and see virtually no change.
 

Except NYC where gun control is effective due in no small part to bolstering it with preventative measures, increased police presence, pro-active measures, and less access to areas with lax gun control laws in which guns can be "lost" by "law-abiding" citizens and end up in criminal hands.  Rudi Giuliani addressed the issues with guns in NYC and the reasons it worked and was difficult.

(07-10-2015, 04:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I don't blame you for making up my logic. Folks that are not qualified to own firearms should not. I am just not so naive that I think passing a law will change it.

There is evidence that gun control does work.  There is evidence that gun control does not work.  And who decides who is qualified to own a firearm?  Don't criminals have the right to protect themselves and their families from intruders, too?

(07-10-2015, 04:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I think the answer is stricter punishment. Commit a felony with a firearm and not be a registered owner; throw away the key.

Fair enough.  And what about the punishment to the "law-abiding citizen" that facilitated the purchase in the first place?  Why not have something in place to hold that person accountable for supplying firearms to criminals?

[GMDino]

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-san-francisco-shooting-20150707-story.html#page=1

Quote:Gun in fatal San Francisco shooting belonged to federal agent

A Mexican national who has been deported multiple times for illegally entering the United States pleaded not guilty to a murder charge Tuesday in the shooting death of Kathryn Steinle, who was strolling on the tourist-friendly Embarcadero with her father last week when she was shot once in the back.

Later Tuesday, law enforcement sources confirmed that the gun used in the shooting belonged to a federal agent, but no details were available about how the suspect may have obtained the weapon, or whether it had been lost or stolen.

...

In a weekend interview with KGO-TV, which on Tuesday first reported the gun’s connection to the federal agent, Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez said he had found the weapon wrapped in a T-shirt on the ground near a bench, and that it had accidentally fired when he touched it.

But he also said he had taken strong sleeping pills and his memory was murky.

The district attorney’s office declined to comment on the gun.

In San Francisco Superior Court on Tuesday, Lopez-Sanchez stood with slumped shoulders next to a Spanish-language interpreter and pleaded not guilty to the single murder charge with firearm enhancements.

Steinle had recently moved to San Francisco for a job from the East Bay suburb of Pleasanton.


San Francisco is among a number of counties and a handful of states that do not honor many requests by immigration authorities to hold inmates beyond their release date in order to hand them over for deportation. In this case, a request by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement that it be notified of his release date went unheeded.

Lopez-Sanchez, 52, was released in April when 20-year-old charges against him were dismissed. He apparently was homeless when he was arrested in connection with Steinle’s shooting.

Asked by Superior Court Judge Daniel Flores whether he understood that he had waived his right to a preliminary hearing within 10 days, he answered clearly, “Si señor.” But when Flores later tried to explain to him that his attorneys said he did not need to be present at a legal hearing July 22, he seemed confused, repeatedly saying, “No soy culpable,” or “I am not guilty.”

Assistant Dist. Atty. Diana Garcia initially sought no bail for Lopez-Sanchez and then argued for $10 million, saying the defendant “found the gun before firing it at close range and hitting the victim in the back.”

Lopez-Sanchez is itinerant with no resources and can't post any bail amount, but his attorney, San Francisco Public Defender Chief Atty. Matt Gonzalez, argued that it should be lowered.

“This is not a defendant with a history of violence,” he said. “He comes before the court in what appears to be a case of a single shot fired.”

He added that from the evidence available so far, “it's very likely this was an accidental shooting,” that Lopez-Sanchez did not know Steinle and that the shooting did not occur during the commission of a crime such as a robbery or assault.


The judge set bail at $5 million.

Outside court, district attorney spokesman Alex Bastian said the evidence supports a charge that Lopez-Sanchez intentionally killed Steinle “with malice aforethought” but declined to elaborate.

Lopez-Sanchez has multiple convictions for felony and misdemeanor drug offenses and criminal reentry to the U.S. after being deported.

He had finished serving his sentence on one of those convictions in a Victorville facility in March when, rather than turn him over to ICE as requested, the Bureau of Prisons discovered the two-decade-old bench warrant on a case involving a $20 marijuana sale and brought him to San Francisco.

The city passed an ordinance in 2013 that bars the Sheriff's Department from holding inmates for ICE beyond their release date unless certain conditions are met. Lopez-Sanchez did not meet those conditions, but San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi also confirmed Tuesday that his department has not honored any immigration “detainer” requests from ICE in a year.

[*bfine32*]

(07-10-2015, 04:42 PM)GMDino Wrote: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-san-francisco-shooting-20150707-story.html#page=1

If only we had a stricter laws prohibiting Illegal immigrants from acquiring lost/stolen Federal Officers' weapons; this could have all been avoided.

[GMDino]

(07-10-2015, 04:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If only we had a stricter laws prohibiting Illegal immigrants from acquiring lost/stolen Federal Officers' weapons; this could have all been avoided.

Like if they had to report it stolen or lost?

[*Nately120*]

(07-10-2015, 05:06 PM)GMDino Wrote: Like if they had to report it stolen or lost?

Ohhhh no!  If we ask people to be responsible and accountable for firearms it'll obviously be a smoke-screen for the government to take your guns so the Kaiser/illegals/bears can just waltz into your house and start shoving you around.

[*bfine32*]

(07-10-2015, 05:06 PM)GMDino Wrote: Like if they had to report it stolen or lost?

Link to where the gun had not been reported lost or stolen..

[GMDino]

(07-10-2015, 05:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Link to where the gun had not been reported lost or stolen..

You didn't answer the question.

But I'll answer yours:

I don't have that.  I have a report that says they won't say anything about it.

Now I'll ask another question:

Did I say it wasn't reported lost or stolen?

[*bfine32*]

(07-10-2015, 05:22 PM)GMDino Wrote: You didn't answer the question.

But I'll answer yours:

I don't have that.  I have a report that says they won't say anything about it.

Now I'll ask another question:

Did I say it wasn't reported lost or stolen?

Fair enough. You did not say it was lost or stolen. Most likely just asking an honest question.

But so you don't feel cheated: Yes there should be requirements to report lost or stolen weapons and I'm pretty sure they are in place for a Federal employee. It's just it is not always a requirement to inform Lee Romney of the L.A. Times.

[fredtoast]

Strict registration laws have no effect in Chicago because it is such a limited area. It would like like making possession of heroine only illegal in one city. It has no effect on that small of a scale.

Why are people so opposed to gun registration laws. It just doesn't make any sense. They don't stop to think of the logic of the argument. They just have a knee jerk anti-gun reaction.

They refuse to acknowledge that registering cars to owners is very effective. They refuse to acknowledge that many drug dealers are in jail because they got caught possessing the drug when they were not actually using it.

And the fantasy that everyone would be safer if everyone had guns has been proven wrong by the abundance of gang related killings, and also the level of violence in the 19th century western territories. They cling to a fantasy that has been proven wrong.

And when all else fails they post one anecdotal story that proves nothing. There are many more children killed by their parents guns than people killed by the guns of federal agents, but they somehow feel that one random story proves they are right.

It is silly.