jump to last post 1-50 of 53 discussions (346 posts)

Gun Controls or Criminal Controls !

  1. ahorseback profile image48
    ahorsebackposted 2 years ago

    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/8875541.jpg
    Eric Holder seems to think we need an ankle bracelet to even use a gun and  be able to stop crime in America ?  And yet , he can't even control his !  He, is the one that needs an ankle bracelet !

    1. rhamson profile image75
      rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Could you please elucidate?

      1. 84
        Education Answerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Ahorseback is referring to Fast and Furious. It's a good point.

    2. 59
      retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      It would probably be more helpful to make everyone paroled or who crosses the borders illegally to wear a bracelet, can you imagine the outrage.

    3. jeff61b profile image90
      jeff61bposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      This post might make sense if any of it was true. Neither Obama nor Eric Holder or anyone else in the administration is proposing anything more than background checks - which are supported by 92% of the American people.
      Also nobody gave or sold guns to criminals in Mexico. Fast and Furious simply monitored the sale of guns to straw buyers in order to track the flow of guns to criminals.

      1. WillStarr profile image84
        WillStarrposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        On the contrary, Eric Holder is proposing a bracelet system:


        http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ … eapon.html

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Nowhere in either the text or the video does anyone propose a bracelet system.  The term used was "explore", which I would hope all our representatives would do before either proposing or voting for a law.  Explore the potentials, probable/possible results, etc.  Look hard, in other words, at what it is, what it would cost, what can be done with it, and what we expect to happen if a bracelet system were required.

          1. WillStarr profile image84
            WillStarrposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            One of the first things they need to explore is whether such a law is even justified. How many guns are used against their owners? Is there really a crisis, or is this just another liberal excuse to gain a foothold in regulating our rights? (After all, those proposing such laws are always gun-hating liberals, like Obama and Eric Holder!)

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              No argument there at all, though I would include how many stolen guns are used in commission of a crime and how many of those are used to murder with.  And when it is all compiled, how much can we hope to reduce the body count by?  I suspect it is near zero, as with all gun control schemes.

              1. WillStarr profile image84
                WillStarrposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Again, when a known gun-hater like Eric Holder is proposing something to 'help' gun owners, our suspicions ought to be on high alert.

                I, for one, don't want to have to count on a battery powered electronic device functioning properly when my life or that of my family is in danger. And, since I would not want to sleep with a bracelet on my wrist, that's one more thing I'd have to accomplish if I heard a window break in the middle of the night. No thank you.

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Oh, I've pretty much given up.  Within 50 years there will be no privately owned guns in the US.  I just hope it is the other side of my grave, and fight to educate people towards that end. 

                  Self protection in the home; if I have time to open the safe and load the gun, I have time to slide a bracelet on.

              2. GA Anderson profile image86
                GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Do you remember how quickly the after-market "fixers" came up with the hack to unlock  the original "locked" iPhones?

                I wonder if the "intelligent" bracelet-dependent guns would have a "hack" available just as quickly?

                Hmm... might not do much for disabling those stolen guns after all.

                Just Sayin'

                GA

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Absolutely a major problem that would HAVE to be addressed to make the system worthwhile.

  2. wilderness profile image97
    wildernessposted 2 years ago

    They ship illegal citizens to us, we ship illegal guns to them. 

    A fair trade, isn't it?

  3. WillStarr profile image84
    WillStarrposted 2 years ago

    The Democrats have been hell-bent on disarming America for years. That is indisputable. The question is why, when 99.998% of legally owned guns will never be used in a crime. What is their real motive?

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      To disarm American citizens - what else could it be?

      Besides, more than a few politicians are already trying to do just that.  Several have "tested the waters", talking up making virtually all guns illegal, confiscating all weapons, etc.  It hasn't worked yet, but it will - the very idea of an armed populace is abhorrent to big government.

  4. tirelesstraveler profile image87
    tirelesstravelerposted 2 years ago

    I actually think this is about the bracelet gun owners will need that will have a wireless link with their guns.  Unless they have the bracelet they won't be able to shoot their gun.  It was on the news yesterday.

    1. Castlepaloma profile image22
      Castlepalomaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      It's only fair that the Government gets rid of their guns in order for the people to get rid of their guns. Fight fire with fire or get rid of guns all together, the public do not not want to be defenseless.

      War dose not solved anything, "Alexander the Great"

      1. 84
        Education Answerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        You're advocating total disarmament?  I'm sure Putin would agree that this would be a great policy. . .for America only.

    2. janesix profile image59
      janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      That's creepy. 1984 ish to me.

      I really hate this idea.

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Not at all - the bracelets are nothing more than a positive identification of the owner; without it a stolen or lost gun won't fire.  Bracelets, rings, even implanted chips (which I would not support) have all been looked at along with other forms of telling the gun "It's me, you can safely shoot.".

        1. janesix profile image59
          janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Maybe I read too much sci fi:)

          This is how it starts....

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Oh, I'm a BIG Sci Fi fan myself. smile

            But, for instance, I carry a "key fob" remote thingie in my pocket for my Toyota Prius.  The car sees that and unlocks the doors when I reach for the handle.  The engine starts because I push the "start" button with the fob in my pocket.  Same thing with the bracelet; the car knows I'm me and so does the gun, all because I'm carrying a transmitter that says so.

            1. janesix profile image59
              janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              What if, say, you had a home invasion and your wife or someone else needed to use your gun. And couldn't due to the bracelet?

              1. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                You can either keep the bracelet with the gun (and a thief gets both) or she couldn't use it.  Unless she also knew where it was - in HER jewelry case maybe?  I don't see such schemes as producing a weapon reasonable to use in case of a home invasion, unless an implanted chip is used and I don't really care for that idea.

                At the same time, I don't see a gun as being useful for a home invasion in all but a minute number of cases; there aren't many home invasions where the home owner has time to open the safe and most gun owners aren't "killer" enough to shoot someone anyway.

                1. janesix profile image59
                  janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Or maybe they can set it up somehow so that more than one family member has a bracelet. That should be easy enough.

                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    I'm sure it could - my Prius can recognize any of 4 different fobs and the gun should be no different.  Security is lost with each additional code, though - add too many and you may as well not have it at all.

                2. 84
                  Education Answerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  The New York Times ran an article bashing NRA statements.  They wrote:

                  "A new paper from the Violence Policy Center states that 'for the five-year period 2007 through 2011, the total number of self-protective behaviors involving a firearm by victims of attempted or completed violent crimes or property crimes totaled only 338,700.' That comes to an annual average of 67,740— not nothing, but nowhere near the N.R.A.’s 2 million or 2.5 million."

                  http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/201 … s&_r=0

                  In its attempt to diminish statements made by the NRA, I feel that the New York Times really illustrated how often Americans protect themselves with guns, over 67,000 times per year on average. 

                  IF 67,740 times isn't much, then what do we call 11,078, nothing?  Guns were used in 11,078 homicides in the U.S. in 2010?

  5. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 2 years ago

    Does "criminal control" mean the first murder is free? Because most of the people who have gone on rampages had no criminal record.

  6. Sychophantastic profile image82
    Sychophantasticposted 2 years ago

    Oh, the hyperbole!

    Democrats want to disarm America? While I'm sure that there are some democrats who would like to outlaw guns, most just want to find ways to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

    Perhaps they go to far trying to find a solution, but is it really wrong to want to keep guns out of the hands of people with a violent criminal record by making them go through a simple background check?

    Is there any kind of gun control gun owners would support?

    1. Castlepaloma profile image22
      Castlepalomaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Not as concern about criminals as I am with Authorities. More concern about a person with a gun than a person who has not.

      Why can't America's learn from much safer Countries who do not allow guns altogether, for Police or  for the Public.

      1. Castlepaloma profile image22
        Castlepalomaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Why do I ask these question, when I know the correct answer.

      2. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Why can't you?  Having fewer guns does not translate into fewer homicides.

      3. rhamson profile image75
        rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        The problem with getting rid of guns altogether has a many faceted answer. First off the constitution specifically address' arms being something a citizen can hold. Whether you argue it was meant as a militia readiness issue or for personal protection it is in the Constitution. Secondly the right has been with us for over two hundred years and as a result it is a part of our culture. No other country exercises the rights and freedoms of gun ownership as much as the US and is therefore one of our most recognizable traits. I lived overseas for a few years and a few of the locals asked me if I owned a machine gun. Thirdly with the criminal law system set up the way it is and the overcrowding of prisons gun crime is hard to be strict on. It used to carry a mandatory five year conviction if you used a gun in the commission of a felony. So what is the answer? With a disputed number as high as 20,000 gun laws there is a precedence that has fallen far short of the objective of eliminating gun crimes. Who is responsible for the abuse of a gun being used in a criminal act? And why should the perpetrator be given such a broad consideration of his rights including freedom when a victims right is to recover or die? Your suggestion of eliminating guns only feeds the criminal the ammunition he needs to exploit those who would lawfully disarm. To disarm is like saying there will be no more sugar sold to combat all the negative affects it has on the human body. No more diabetes, tooth decay, moonshine etc......... The only answer I can come up with is to prosecute to the most stringent ability of the law to convict and incarcerate anyone who possess' a gun while committing a crime, planning a crime, or even going to someone else's house to argue while possessing or having a gun in the car. Make the person pay dearly for even considering using a gun to make a point or confrontation any more than a discussion. Any more than a discussion call a cop!

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          How about if we quit whining and crying about a subset of criminal activity (the specific tool used) and put our efforts into finding why our society is so violent, so prone to criminal activities, and put a stop to it?

          If we do that, we'll not only stop gun crime, we'll stop the crime that would have occurred if we took the guns away.

          1. rhamson profile image75
            rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            What you are talking about is way beyond the scope of the powers that be to decipher. Some would point to the violent video games our kids play or the violence that we all watch on television or the heartless killing of innocents we read about in the newspapers. Do we need a censor to regulate the amount of hours or specific acts we can subject ourselves or our children too? Is there to be disclaimers before every act about to be witnessed that viewing it could be detrimental to your psyche or others well being so be advised? What liberal think tank could you employ to make us feel good about ourselves and others as they examine what makes us act out on each other? The whole thing comes down to convincing someone that if they choose to use a gun to either settle or threaten another there are severe repercussions for your actions. So severe that it is not worth it. Look how well the clamping down of drunk driving has worked over the years when those even in the throws of addiction even think twice before getting behind the wheel drunk. Drunk driving has been cut in half since 1980 when MADD began. The answer has been severe penalties for those who break the law to effect any change. Will stricter enforcement eliminate gun violence but half way is a start.

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              If it is beyond the scope of the powers that be to decipher, then all is lost for certainly even confiscating all the guns in the country will not lower the violence rate one iota.  The rest of the world has proven that beyond any doubt.

              The difference with DUI is not the heavier penalties (although they help) it is a change in the mindset of the man in the street.  Most people find drunk driving unacceptable now, and will neither participate nor condone such actions.  It is the change in mindset that has resulted in the reduced death rate, not primarily heavier penalties.

              1. rhamson profile image75
                rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                The need to decipher and regulate guns is a wasteful task. We have guns and we will continue to have guns even if made illegal to own them. There are too many out there and the criminal element will always be able to obtain them. What has to happen is a personal; commitment on the gun owners mind that they should always know where their weapons are and if they are safe from thieves or others that would be able to take them. On the governments end it should be a mindset of vigorous prosecution and unwavering prison time against plea bargaining when a gun charge is leveled against those that have done illegal acts using one. As far as the mindset that has taken over drunk driving I will give you a thought that there were more against the drunk driving than those for it and the fight was one sided. But as you said a mindset was set, and mostly the courts were forced to heavily prosecute those offenders and I believe it could be sustainable for gun offenders as well.

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  You speak as if guns are a problem, but they aren't.  Gun violence is high, yes, but if it weren't guns it would be something else - guns are nothing but a handy tool for the violence-oriented among us.

                  No, the problem is the violence in our society, not the chosen tool used.  And the solution is NOT going to be found by eliminating and certainly not by limiting that tool to criminal usage.  The solution is to change the mindset that allows violence as necessary or desirable.  Only when that concept is driven out will the violence cease.  Gun control/regulation is nothing but a red herring that politicians and citizens jump on as a quick easy solution, but it will never accomplish anything.  Just make us all feel better, until the next massacre happens.

                  1. rhamson profile image75
                    rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Who's talking about gun control? I am talking about the acts that are created using guns. Guns are a convenient way for people to act out on others. It is the simplest way to kill someone. Even a knife requires a lot of anger and personal commitment to kill someone. So the focus is on the simplest way to commit an act of violence. So if you remove the ease by which someone overcomes the moral implications then you create a conciseness to begin the change. Removing the gun doesn't change someone's desire to kill another but knowing that the consequences to be so severe may give them enough pause to think. I know if someone wants to kill another there is little that can be done but something has to interrupt the thought process to begin a change.

                  2. Castlepaloma profile image22
                    Castlepalomaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    wilderness

                    Gun violence is high, yes, but if it weren't guns it would be something else - guns are nothing but a handy tool for the violence-oriented among us.

                    The data from other countries show different , less gun,  less crime. Authority kill more people than criminal, so when Authority are bad examples. Why should the criminal kill less then the state when their  worst hypocrites.

                    Put  2 killers in a room, arm one of killers with a hammers, also include a knives, baseball bat, razor blades, broken wine bottles, chains etc ect. Then armed  the other killer with just a gun.
                    Have them fight to the death- who is most likely to win?

              2. GA Anderson profile image86
                GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                I think you are right about the change in mindset part. But I also think the heavier penalties also had a lot to do with it.

                In the past, it was possible to get away with a couple DUIs with just a fine - now a second DUI could, and a 3rd almost always does, include some jail time. Plus the fines and penalties have become a lot more than a slap on the wrist. Even for folks that can afford it.

                GA

            2. GA Anderson profile image86
              GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I think it can be boiled down to a much simpler explanation, without all the sociological "possible" reasons you mentioned. And it lays in plain view, on the same plate as Wilderness'  "change in mindset" explanation...

              I think it is our cultural left-turn away from the concept of personal responsibility. As simple as that. That is the trunk of the tree of our society's problems - everything else is just branches and leaves.

              Of course that's just my two cents worth.

              GA

              1. rhamson profile image75
                rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Totally agree with you. What do we do with the perpetrators in the meantime?

    2. rhamson profile image75
      rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      There is an alarmist bunch who make all or nothing rants as the topic allows. Just as they express all Democrats are lefties there are the others that conjure up the idea that all Republicans are Tea Party nuts.

  7. WillStarr profile image84
    WillStarrposted 2 years ago

    "Perhaps they go to far trying to find a solution, but is it really wrong to want to keep guns out of the hands of people with a violent criminal record by making them go through a simple background check?"

    It's already required, but only the law abiding go through a background check at a licensed dealer. Criminals buy their guns from illegal street dealers or from straw buyers.

    1. Castlepaloma profile image22
      Castlepalomaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      The gun cancer has spread everywhere, not as bad, a killer as smoking.
      Yet, we did reduce smoking to half and we can do it with guns too. Crime will be greatly reduced, Less suicides, less people killing people they know greater than the criminal they don't know.

      1. 84
        Education Answerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        A lot more people die in automobile accidents.  Honestly, you'd probably save more lives by investing in a better transit system, bridges, and roads, by increasing safety standards and training for young, new drivers.

        Guns are a convenient scapegoat, a quick fix.

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Cut the speed limit 10 MPH.  You'll save more lives than magically taking every gun from every citizen in the country.

      2. WillStarr profile image84
        WillStarrposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Most gun deaths are suicides, and people bent on suicide would simply find another way. Most other gun deaths are inner city gang murders, so if you are not suicidal, not a criminal or a gang member, don't buy illicit drugs, and are not a brave cop, your chances of being shot are near zero.

        There is no 'gun cancer' and there is no crisis. 99.998% of legally owned guns never kill anyone.

      3. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        And yet...the numbers VERY plainly show that there is exactly zero correlation between guns and homicide rates.  You might (might) save a handful of suicides or accidents, but that's it.  You will absolutely not save any significant number of people dying from being shot by someone else.

  8. WillStarr profile image84
    WillStarrposted 2 years ago

    "Why can't America's learn from much safer Countries who do not allow guns altogether, for Police or  for the Public."


    Why do you suppose heavily armed Switzerland has such a low crime rate? Or Sweden? Or even your own Canada?

    None have the large minority population that the US has, and sadly, it is the minorities who commit most of the crime and are also the victims.

    1. Castlepaloma profile image22
      Castlepalomaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Guns in America was really became a national scandal

      Of the world's 23 "rich" countries, the U.S. gun-related murder rate is almost 20 times that of the other 22. With almost one privately owned firearm per person, America's ownership rate is the highest in the world; tribal-conflict-torn Yemen is ranked second, with a rate about half of America's.

      In 2008, the U.S. had over 12 thousand firearm-related homicides. All of Japan experienced only 11, fewer than were killed at the Aurora shooting alone. And that was a big year: 2006 saw an astounding two.

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        But the US murder rate is on par with most other first world countries.  A pretty obvious indication that guns aren't the problem, isn't it?  Or is that something that you would rather pretend doesn't show up so plainly?

        How about quoting some nice, round stats on homicide rates, not just gun homicides?  Or do I need to do it?

        1. Castlepaloma profile image22
          Castlepalomaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          WIKI
          By region
          UNODC murder rates most recent year
          Region     Rate     Count
              Africa             17.0        169,105
              Americas      15.4     144,635
              Asia               3.1       127,120
              Europe       3.2     23,516
              Oceania       2.9     1,180
                 World       6.9     466,078

          psycheskinner

          Where did you get 3.9 per 100,000 USA homicide rate?

          1. Castlepaloma profile image22
            Castlepalomaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            If USA rate is half of the World's rate, I might move back there. lo

          2. Silverspeeder profile image62
            Silverspeederposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            What ever you do don't move to San Pedro Sula in Honduras as their homicide rate is 158 per 100.000.
            New Orleans looks quite nice with 57 per 100.000.

            1. Castlepaloma profile image22
              Castlepalomaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Nothing like experiencing living in both the USA and Centro America and both do have there hot spot to stay away from, yet find people in Centro America are happier.

              I loss millions of dollars from companies and Governments, and from street criminals, about $600 altogether
              The white collar crime has done more harm to me and most people slavery to their bills.

          3. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            That figure is in the ballpark for US homicide rate per the UN figures compiled by the small arms study they use.  It does, of course, depend somewhat on the year, but it is in the ballpark for any half way recent year.

            *edit* scrolling down your own WIKI link, it shows the US as 4.8 for "the most recent year", whatever that is.  I believe it has edged down since then.

            1. Castlepaloma profile image22
              Castlepalomaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              One thing notice, it's predominate christian countries creating the highest murder rates and wars. Small Latin countries have highest murder rate.

              highest in the Americas (29.3 per 100,000 males), where it is almost seven times higher than in Asia, Europe and Oceania (all under 4.5 per 100,000 males)," shares UN in a press release. "In particular, the homicide rate for male victims aged 15-29 in South and Central America is over four times the global average rate for that age group. More than 1 in 7 of all homicide victims globally is a young male aged 15-29 in the Americas." it's the fear of guns, causing over control of the masses ,  We are much better at killing ourselves where suicide kills more than murder, war and terror combined. Most suicides,- gun related. I wish we the people take over the courage and thinking rather than letting the Governments do too much of thinking for us.

  9. WillStarr profile image84
    WillStarrposted 2 years ago

    Then why are our streets safe to walk if we stay out of the ghettos? The UK is twice as violent as the US, and the UN recently named Scotland as the most violent nation on Earth.

    Again, the vast majority of murders in the US are our large minority populations killing each other. We cannot compare the US to countries that have little to no minority population.

    1. Castlepaloma profile image22
      Castlepalomaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      The US has only has 4% of the world' population and they have half  of the World's war budget.
      That's not Defense, that Offense, smells of greed to me.

      I've traveled 94 countries, 6 war zone countries and every state in America except Alaska. By far it;s the most dangerous country except Centro parts of Africa that even I won't go. Nobody will help them out unless they have oil or opium.

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Never been south of the American border, eh?  Or to South Africa?  Or the bush country in Australia?  How about Columbia? 

        As countries go, the US is about on par with the rest of the first world, and far better than most of the third.

        1. Castlepaloma profile image22
          Castlepalomaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Drug Columbia was the worst back in the 70s 80s, much safer now, feel safer in most third world countries than the USA. People are bigger, many carry weapons, and the police are worst than the criminals by record. Just think 95% of crime is not street crime

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Nice that you feel safer in countries with enormous crime rates and indigenous populations that target foreigners in general and Americans in specific, but I'm not sure what that has to do with reality and whether you actually ARE safer.  Or am I missing something here?

            I mean, I know several people with a carry permit - not one of whom typically carries a weapon.  No one I know of walks around armed.  I don't find police more violent or dangerous than the criminals around my area.  And even if only 5% or crime is not street violence, that doesn't make a country dangerous to walk around in.

            1. Castlepaloma profile image22
              Castlepalomaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Street people or criminal have done very little harm to me. White people have done far more harm to me, than all races combined.

              Goverments and Large companies routinely commit crimes that injure the public much more than street crimes in many ways: economically, socially, physically and environmentally. Yet corporate crimes are generally dealt with by civil and administrative law, with penalties such as fines but not prison. In environmental law, e.g., many industries control themselves.

              Other crimes most common are white collar crime is when an employee steals from the employer or who cheats customers and pockets the difference.Typically a corporate criminal bribes a government, dumps toxic industrial waste into rivers. Corporate crimes are often called quiet acts because people not only don’t know whom to blame but may not even know that they have been victimized. There are data collection problems also. It's endless.

              1. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                "Street people or criminal have done very little harm to me. White people have done far more harm to me, than all races combined. "

                Did you intend these two statements to be connected or have something in common?  Did you intend that they correlate in some manner?  Because I find the suggestion that only non-whites can be criminals to be really offensive; almost as much as the one that only whites ever harm anyone.

                Not sure what your solution is to corporate crimes outside of fines - do you find it reasonable to put the corporate office behind bars?

                No, a typical corporate criminal doesn't bribe a government official and dump toxic waste into a river.  Not sure where you are, but that is quite uncommon in the US.  And if people don't know they are a victim, then it's hard to agree that a crime was done.  No harm - no crime; I'm not a believer in "victimless crimes" such as THC usage or prostitution.

                But still, if you mean to indicate that all crimes contribute equally to how dangerous it is to walk down the street in various countries, I would have to agree with you.  The US is then as dangerous as Columbia or Mexico, it's just that one will fleece the tourist and the other kill them.

                1. Castlepaloma profile image22
                  Castlepalomaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  White Russia and America own 90% of the World's nukes. America per capita has the fastest growing carbon foot print on the face of the earth.
                  Whites race are in war with Brown people most. American Natives, Middle East and Centro and South America.

                  1. Castlepaloma profile image22
                    Castlepalomaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    You can't really believe most of the American Press

  10. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 2 years ago

    3.9 per 100,000 is not a horrendous homicide rate for a first world country.   Europe is not much different at 3.2

    That said Australasia and the United Kingdom is 1.0 -- so, room for improvement.

  11. WillStarr profile image84
    WillStarrposted 2 years ago

    We are over twice as likely to be assaulted on the streets of the unarmed UK as we are on the streets of the US. That's a fact:

    http://www.nationmaster.com/country-inf … ates/Crime

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      And you are much more likely to be bludgeoned to death (bats, pipes, hands, feet, etc.) in Canada than in the US.

      It doesn't matter much what method is used when the body cools, and those thinking the prohibiting honest citizens from owning any specific weapon will decrease the body count somehow just don't get it.

      1. Castlepaloma profile image22
        Castlepalomaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Nonsense, violence will never slow down or stop violence's. I'm very adventurist and  living proof of that. Harmed nobody

  12. WillStarr profile image84
    WillStarrposted 2 years ago

    If we compare white crime only (since neither Canada nor the UK has a sizable black or Hispanic population and only about 30% of all murders in the US are committed by whites), we find that the murder rates per 100,000 are quite comparable with Canada at 1.63, the US at 1.42, and the UK at 1.17.

    http://www.nationmaster.com/country-inf … 000-people

    1. Castlepaloma profile image22
      Castlepalomaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      America has had his racist issue for a long the drug war on Marijuana was base on deporting Mexican as it was call the Mexican drug. They only got out of segregation in the mid 60s for black.

      Black Americans are arrested at 2.6 times the per-capita rate of all other Americans, and this ratio is even higher for murder (6.3 times) and robbery (8.1 times). Much of the arrest are still racist, one big reason also is due to lack of finance for lawyers.

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Wait.  Because the US deported Mexican citizens violating US laws, and because most Mary Jane came out of Mexico made the US racist?  Can't say as I follow that.

        Where are most arrests made, statistically?  Inner city ghetto's maybe?  What is the racial mix there?  Mostly black maybe?  And possibly that inevitably results in more blacks arrested on a per-capita basis?  And that makes the US cops racist?  Can't say as I follow that reasoning either.  And lack of financing for lawyers has zero affect on the arrest rate - only the conviction rate which I will absolutely agree is wrong.

        1. Castlepaloma profile image22
          Castlepalomaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Acknowledge that the Racism of Harry Anslinger led to Cannabis Prohibition

                  Petition by
          If you've never heard of Harry Anslinger, Google the name and prepare to be disgusted.
          Every year, hundreds of thousands of American lives are ripped apart, by a law that was inspired by quotes like "Marihuana makes the 'darkies' think they're just as good as a White Man" and "Marihuana makes Black Men look twice, at White Women".
          Cannabis Prohibition is currently opposed by 70% of the American Public, and Medical Use is legal in 16 States and the District of Columbia, all while the Federal Government relies on studies that have been dis proven many times over, to maintain a status quo, that is making Dealers and the Privatized Prison Industry rich, while destroying individual lives, families, and even entire communities, AND makes a mockery of the average American's claim to cherish and defend Liberty and Freedom

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            And all that shows that the US is racially discriminating against citizens of Mexico?  That IS where you started, you know...

            Aren't you really grasping at the "RACISM!" cry here?

            1. WillStarr profile image84
              WillStarrposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              This is how it always goes. The left claims that the US murder rate is justification for banning guns, and when we point out that a very small segment is actually responsible for most of these killings, we are labeled racists.

              We should instead examine why this is happening and make it a national priority to put a stop to it, so these minority kids get a fair shot at success.

              1. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Well, yes, of course.  As guns don't kill people, another rallying cry must be found to divert attention from the real issue; the homicide rate in the country.  Can't be looking at that much at all because, well, it will end up pointing to something very wrong at the root of our society.  And it ain't the iron that some people carry around.

        2. Castlepaloma profile image22
          Castlepalomaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Anti-marijuana laws were based on racism, not science, There is a lot more profit for the prison complex and police benefits going after pot raids than murderers. Same with the war complex more profit going after oil countries or after opium countries to steal for profit. How else will they out grow the guns of the public?

          Harry Anslinger, the first commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics pushed it for explicitly racist reasons, saying, "Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men," There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the U.S., and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others." (And god forbid women should sleep with entertainers!)
          Being an artist an entertainer I’m still experience the abuse and I don’t do drugs.

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            But what does all that have to do with deporting Mexican citizens that violate our laws?  That IS where the "racism" started, after all - a tirade about weed and Mexicans...


            Did you know Marijuana is a drug?

            1. Castlepaloma profile image22
              Castlepalomaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Schedule 1 drugs  Heroin LSD, Acid diethylamide  Marijuana (cannabis) Methaqualone-

              I would Schedule marijuana a four and no one has directly has died from cannabis for 10,000 years

              Schedule 3 - Nicotine – has directly kills more people than all drugs combined plus more


              Of the millions of people convicted of marijuana that were killed or imprisoned. Only two cops were killed in the line of duty.  If anyone tell you, these people come out of prison- better, is a liar also.

              I 'm glad you challenge these questions, most people do not have the courage to ask.

              1. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Yes, I challenge these kinds of things.  For instance - you have exactly zero idea what the cause of death was for an African peasant 10,000 years ago.  You certainly cannot truthfully make the claim that weed has never killed a single person in that time span; it is almost inevitable that there were dead in the hundreds.

                Nor can you make the claim that Nicotine has killed more people than all other drugs combined; you have no figures showing that at all. 

                You and I both know that more than two cops have been killed in the line of duty, and we both know that more than two were killed in the line of duty concerning weed.  If nothing else, we've lost that many taking down the farmers in the far off hills, growing the stuff.

                Bottom line - you are so enamored of a drug you claim not to use that you will say anything at all to promote it.  Lie, truth, unknown; it makes no difference if it promotes marijuana.  You would be far ahead of the game to research your ridiculous claims and set aside those that are either known false (2 cops dead in the line of duty) or completely unknown (no one killed in 10 millenium).  Such statements do not promote trust or belief, but rather make you out to be mouthing platitudes that have nothing to do with reality.

                1. Castlepaloma profile image22
                  Castlepalomaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Boys, got to proof all time in this site.

                  According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2006, when their database was last updated, 22,073 people died of alcohol, 12,113 died of AIDS, 43,664 died of car accidents, 38,396 died of drug use — legal and illegal — 18,573 died of murder and 33,300 died of suicide.

                  That brings us to a total of 168,119 deaths, far less than the 450,000 that die from smoking annually.

                  Do some checking too? I'll be back later with the rest.  Just to Remind though, Governments hide things like tobacco company.

                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Are you trying to say that nicotine directly causes all of the deaths attributed to smoking?  Remember, nicotine has nothing to do with lung cancer, emphysema or any of the other lung diseases, and causes heart disease only in combination with other factors (primarily high cholesterol)

                    But regardless of that fact, nicotine was virtually unknown prior to the European discovery of the America's and you claimed it has caused more deaths than any other drug.

  13. WillStarr profile image84
    WillStarrposted 2 years ago

    It's not racist to point out who is doing the killing and who are also being the victims. It's racist to ignore it, and it is being ignored.

    1. Castlepaloma profile image22
      Castlepalomaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      If we honestly look at what is really killing us most. WAR is only at number 59th place and murder at 42nd place. The 10 ten ways to die is most related to our own physical and mental health in our natural environment, in what we eat or drink or work out.

      Guns purpose is more for controlling the masses which the Governments dose best. The Government is in the back pocket of white large corporation profits. Beside Blacks kill more black than black kill whites. Since we are brainwash or whitewash so well, when will we all get along and be equal.
      I can dance with black woman in a bar in Canada yet got throw out twice for doing that in the US. Racism of Harry Anslinger made dancing with blacks or worst marriage illegal .  It seemS it;s still an unwritten law in some places.

  14. jeff61b profile image90
    jeff61bposted 2 years ago

    Foolish message. First, Obama has proposed nothing to take anyone's guns away. Eric Holder has never tried to stop any law-abiding citizen from owning a gun. 
    Second, Obama has sent no guns to Mexico. Fast and Furious was a program to monitor the sale of guns to straw purchasers who buy guns legally and smuggle them to criminals in Mexico. It began under Bush and was ended by Obama.

    1. Castlepaloma profile image22
      Castlepalomaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Obama is a  puppet like Bush, and (agree) he has allow more of a mess to grow.
      More Mexican have dead around the boarders over the drug wars than killed in Afghanistan war over opium wars. Yes, opium not over the strawman or trillion $ man Bin laden.

  15. WillStarr profile image84
    WillStarrposted 2 years ago

    When 99.999% of Americans will not be shot or injured by a firearm this year, is it really a crisis?

  16. WillStarr profile image84
    WillStarrposted 2 years ago

    And since liberals are so supportive of assisted suicide and even euthanasia, why are they so opposed to do-it-yourself with a gun? More than half of all gun deaths are actually suicides, a fact that liberal gun haters omit when they are trying to fan the anti-gun flames.

    1. Castlepaloma profile image22
      Castlepalomaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      liberal and conservative is like front and back, we need both inside of each other at different time, why have war with yourself. Or dose a tree fight with its own branches.

      What kills more than anything is our fast and fat food markets. Wail the rich are getting richer off it, we are too busy fighting each other wail they walk away with the money. Gun death toll is not the great killer here, its the threat of guns, the Government has many, and when the public losses their defence and control against the Government which are in bed with the rich.  Get rid of guns from both sides, like peaceful Japan.

      Like too much fat sugary  food, its too convenient to get a guns with no licence.  The rich will sell you the rope to hang yourself too. Guns do kill more than dogs do and in 10 states in the US, guns kill more than cars.
      Dogs and cars need licences and both are useful , why not useless Guns have licences.

      Some gun people tell me Doctors kill more people than guns. Maybe they should allow patients guns to make sure the Doctor dose the right job. Where dose it end, guns are in school lockers, shopping malls guards and everywhere, oh my God.!!!

  17. WillStarr profile image84
    WillStarrposted 2 years ago

    "This post might make sense if any of it was true. Neither Obama nor Eric Holder or anyone else in the administration is proposing anything more than background checks - which are supported by 92% of the American people."

    We already do background checks, on any guns we buy from a dealer, including at gun shows. What the left wants to do is burden private gun owners by requiring them to do a background check if they sell a gun to a friend, even though such sales seldom result in crimes.

    "Also nobody gave or sold guns to criminals in Mexico."

    A straw man. No one is arguing that American guns were sold in Mexico. 

    "Fast and Furious simply monitored the sale of guns to straw buyers in order to track the flow of guns to criminals."

    Except that they did not track those guns. They had no idea where they went.That's how they ended up killing so many people. They deliberately sold them to criminals and then they failed to track them. That's scandalous behavior, and why an ATF agent blew the whistle!

    1. Castlepaloma profile image22
      Castlepalomaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Just legalize drugs, and guns will be greatly reduced.

      1. WillStarr profile image84
        WillStarrposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I won't argue with that. In a free country, we ought to be able to use such drugs as long as we don't make other people responsible for the result.

        1. Castlepaloma profile image22
          Castlepalomaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          People are responsible for their own bodies. Telling people NO, like for example to POT only makes them want it more. Once they are too stone to the eyeballs, too many times, they will cut back and even smoke it less.

  18. WillStarr profile image84
    WillStarrposted 2 years ago

    "Self protection in the home; if I have time to open the safe and load the gun, I have time to slide a bracelet on."


    That's another liberal myth. Small children finding a loaded gun and killing themselves with it happens less than 50 times a year, and then only in homes where the parents are so inept that they don't bother teaching their kids about guns, or they leave it on the coffee table!

    An unloaded and inaccessible gun is utterly useless, which is why liberals demand that they be kept that way. When I was growing up, most homes had a shotgun leaning in a corner with a box of shells up on a shelf, and we knew better than to even get near it.

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Our guns were the same, but then the front door was never locked, either, unless we were to be gone more than a day or so. 

      Times have changed, and that does make a difference.   I agree that children aren't a major problem for most gun owners, but the children's friends are and so are thieves.

  19. Kathleen Cochran profile image85
    Kathleen Cochranposted 2 years ago

    Other countries seem to manage gun ownership better than we do.  Why don't we just do what they do?  This is not an unsolvable problem.  I sometimes think we just don't want to solve it.

    1. 84
      Education Answerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      The problem with emulating other countries is that many don't really have gun control; they ban guns.  Take Britain for example.  It's illegal to own a handgun there.  That is unacceptable to the vast majority of Americans.

    2. WillStarr profile image84
      WillStarrposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Nearly 70% of gun crime in America is committed by the large minority population that the other heavily armed countries like Switzerland simply don't have. We need to address the problems that lead young minority men and women down the wrong road. Instead, we look the other way. The same day that 20 white kids were killed in a mass school shooting, 22 black kids died on inner city streets. One made headlines for weeks. The other was barely mentioned because it happens every day.

      1. 84
        Education Answerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Nobody wants to address this for fear of being branded a racist, but you're absolutely right.

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          PROFILING!!  PROFILING!!!

          lol

  20. WillStarr profile image84
    WillStarrposted 2 years ago

    "And as plainly as you have identified reasoning other than your own as "silly" you will fail to find an end to the violence."

    If your goal is to put an end to human violence, I wish you well but I'm afraid you're going to be very disappointed because you will accomplish very little.

    1. rhamson profile image75
      rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      That is precisely the gist of all my posts related to this subject. Good luck with ending the violence that precedes the use of a gun or any other weapon for that matter. My reasoning's are that we can approach the violence from the point of view that the few who have a propensity to commit murders and other such crimes with a gun should be subjected to the most stringent of punishments. Wilderness purports that the gun is not the offender but the tool by which the criminal accomplishes his act. I agree that it is an important point but to ignore the tool that is easily accessible will not help nor be the end all be all to curb the violence. It is merely a part of the problem and if ignored nothing can be accomplished. As long as man has and continues to exist there will be those that will commit violence. My approach is to deal with those individuals in a comprehensive manner while Wilderness wishes to dismiss any idea of gun accountability and prevention for those individuals that continue in their violent ways.

      1. WillStarr profile image84
        WillStarrposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        99.998% of the legally owned guns in the US will never be used to shoot anyone, so why would you punish the law-abiding?

        So what do you propose that would actually work? Tell us what law you would pass that you guarantee will stop criminals from committing gun murders.

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Issue all cops a fully automatic SAW and shoot to kill orders at the first sign of a gun.  It will go a long way towards stopping gun murders, even if it won't affect the overall murder rate. 

          You'll have some collateral damage but, hey, the rate of gun murders will fall and victims of stabbings, car bombs, bludgeonings and other weapons can take solace in that they were never shot.  And we could reasonably expect the collateral damage to ease off to only a few thousand per year after a few years of shooting anyone with a gun. 

          It will work in reducing the number of guns out there, and a few thousand innocent lives each year is a cheap price to pay for that!

          1. rhamson profile image75
            rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Yippee Ki Yo Ki Yay. Let the gunslingers loose! That will surely solve it. Two negatives make a positive? Escalate the violence is your answer? I should have seen it coming. It's all good until the collateral damage is one of your loved ones. Is that for the greater good? You're a champ for your sacrifice. wink

            1. 84
              Education Answerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Yes, that is EXACTLY what we are advocating.

              Hyperbole begets hyperbole.

              1. rhamson profile image75
                rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                I truly hope that you are right. smile

                1. 84
                  Education Answerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  I am right about hyperbole begetting hyperbole.  lol

        2. rhamson profile image75
          rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I went over this earlier in this topic. I would catch them at a earlier stage of their criminal career and especially if their offense was weapon related. I would throw the book at them and make the consequences so severe they would at least think of a better way to get away with it if they were so inclined. The problem is that the violent criminals know there is bargaining room and flip on each other to get out of a lengthy or severe sentence. There are 20,000 laws on the books to deal with these people but they are plea bargained out over time so they pay little attention to their actions or just get a better lawyer. People who want to murder will do just that by any means they see possible but not all people who murder repeat it once they have felt the full extent of the law.

      2. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        That would not be the case.  While Wilderness understands and agrees that the gun did not shoot anyone, the point of Wilderness's argument is that removing guns won't stop the blood shed.  And it won't - experience the world over plainly shows that.

        Wilderness understands as well that you don't want to discuss that, that you think you find reasons it shouldn't work that way and therefore it isn't true, but the fact remains that it DOES work that way, and removing guns won't stop the murders. 

        And THAT leads to the inescapable conclusions that gun laws, whether total confiscation or any lesser action, will not affect the murder rate and is therefore a dead end and should not be pursued.  This, of course, assumes that the goal is to save lives, not make a political statement or assuage irrational fears.  If the goal is actually to calm the populace that is screaming for gun removal, then by all means continue the attack on guns with the intent of eventually taking them all away.

        1. rhamson profile image75
          rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Thank you for reiterating your point however convoluted it may be.

    2. Castlepaloma profile image22
      Castlepalomaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Some like violence and blowing things up, too bad for the many who do not.

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        And that is the problem.  So how do we stop it?  How do we eliminate that joy in violence - how do we instill peace into our citizenry?

        1. Castlepaloma profile image22
          Castlepalomaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Give peace a chance.

  21. WillStarr profile image84
    WillStarrposted 2 years ago

    When has the threat of a severe penalty  ever stopped a killer? They ignore penalties because they either don't think they will be caught or don't care! There is no sufficient threat deterrent to stop crime. In fact penalties are not meant to deter. They are meant to punish.

    If you think more severe penalties will work, you are ignoring human nature.

    1. Castlepaloma profile image22
      Castlepalomaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      To kill someone to prove killing is wrong is just hypocritical. You can't show data of proof of the increase of crime a gun makes to a man of power with a gun, Bigger guns override wisdom, Military and prison complex far out weights education and treatment centers.

      1. WillStarr profile image84
        WillStarrposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Uh...OK.

    2. rhamson profile image75
      rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      How could you know? You are assuming that everyone who picks up a gun to kill someone does in fact carry it out. Or that after running all the options through their head they just complete the murder. Remember what happens when you assume?

  22. WillStarr profile image84
    WillStarrposted 2 years ago

    "How could you know? You are assuming that everyone who picks up a gun to kill someone does in fact carry it out."

    What are you talking about? I never said any of that!

    "Or that after running all the options through their head they just complete the murder."

    I also said nothing remotely like that! Sheesh!

    "Remember what happens when you assume?"

    You should take your own advice! You 'assumed' I meant all that when I said nothing of the sort!

    1. rhamson profile image75
      rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      "When has the threat of a severe penalty ever stopped a killer?" How could you know?

      "They ignore penalties because they either don't think they will be caught or don't care!" You are assuming that everyone who picks up a gun to kill someone does in fact carry it out.

      "There is no sufficient threat deterrent to stop crime. In fact penalties are not meant to deter. They are meant to punish."
      What do you base this claim on? 3.7% of murderers released from prison commit murder again is one statistic that shows most don't commit murder after serving time. Are the rest just lucky? Does anyone who does not commit a crime do so because they were taught as a child that it is not a nice thing to do? Or are they afraid of the consequences? Your all or nothing assumption is what I was taking about.

      "If you think more severe penalties will work, you are ignoring human nature." Does that apply to capital crimes or misdemeanors or both? Once again an all or nothing assumption based on what? How many juveniles get into trouble and have their record sealed when they turn twenty one and never offend again? How many manslaughter convicts get paroled and never offend again? Your statements indicate that all convicts are the same and not able to be rehabilitated. Perhaps you forgot something else about human nature, the dynamic thought process whereby most people learn from their mistakes.

      1. WillStarr profile image84
        WillStarrposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        You scold others for making 'assumptions', yet look at all the assumptions you just made! You read in things that aren't there and then put words in your opponent's mouth he never said. And on top of all that, you ask loaded questions.

        You are a walking example of logical fallacies. Prepare to be ignored.

        1. rhamson profile image75
          rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Testy aren't we? I just answered your questions in the order you asked them and while I am not trying to trap anybody into saying something they will regret you left the door open as they say. Sorry to offend you and I would appreciate it if you would ignore me in the future if you get upset so easily. Thank you.

          1. WillStarr profile image84
            WillStarrposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Once again you make the assumptions you claim others should avoid. You assume I'm angry, when I'm actually just trying to point out all your logical fallacies. Read this and then get back to me:


            http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/E … lacies.htm

            1. rhamson profile image75
              rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Very Good! You actually have a theory based on some study. Now back to the subject at hand. I would appreciate it if you could stay on subject as that is what we began and the nature of your assumed understanding of what is being discussed. You never addressed any point I was making instead trying to deflect the conversation to some other assumed predisposition. I tried to help you and get you up to speed on the subject we have been covering for the last several days without your participation but you have a judgment that seems to require little information to make. Guess what? That is an assumption on your part as well!

              The subject I was discussing was the recidivism rate of convicted murderers let out on parole that did not repeat murder. That being a 3.7% repeating rate. This suggests a rehabilitation that you so soundly declared was instead just punishment. What say you on this. smile

  23. WillStarr profile image84
    WillStarrposted 2 years ago

    I was unaware that you are the reigning authority on what can and cannot be discussed.

    A question I don't believe you ever addressed:

    "Tell us what law you would pass that you guarantee will stop criminals from committing gun murders."

    (And if you can't guarantee that your law will work, why should we support it?)

    Just give us a straight answer. No weaseling.

    1. rhamson profile image75
      rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Thank you for getting back on topic. There are no guarantees with anything but statistically the recidivism rate for murderers on parole is surprisingly low. They range from the 3.7% I mentioned earlier to some that are as low as 1.2%. I mentioned these statistics because you stated that prison was not for rehabilitation but as punishment. It seems in the endeavor to punish these murderers there was at least a lesson learned and rehabilitation with regards to murder was achieved. Can you address this anomaly to the popular notion of no rehabilitation taking place.

  24. WillStarr profile image84
    WillStarrposted 2 years ago

    If you can't/won't guarantee that your law (whatever it is) will work, you're just blowing smoke.

    1. rhamson profile image75
      rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      If in the course of life you have found an absolute when it relates to human behavior I would like to hear it. Other than that I think you have something funny in that pipe YOU are blowing smoke out of.lol

    2. Sychophantastic profile image82
      Sychophantasticposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      If your argument rests on the guarantee that a law will work and you will only support a law with a guarantee of 100% success, then you obviously support lawlessness. There's no law on the books that's guaranteed to work.

      1. 59
        retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        But if you are going to compel those who have committed no crime to restrict their Constitutionally protected rights with a law that is less than perfect and endangers the life of that law abiding citizen, aren't you constricted his rights?  To what end? It is criminals who need controlled and ample evidence suggests that when gun crime laws are not thoroughly enforced then gun crime grows.  Evidence also suggests that when ordinary laws are not enforced, all crime increases. 

        The lefty seeks to control those who are doing little more than exercising rights authored by God or by Nature.  One cannot be stripped of those rights with out tyrannical power.

        If you are so keen on restricting the right to keep and bear arms are you equally as keen on restricting the right to free speech?  Given the recent flap of the word "bossy" I would bet the answer is yes.

        1. rhamson profile image75
          rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Agree 100%

      2. WillStarr profile image84
        WillStarrposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        If someone is going to propose yet another new gun law that will further restrict our right to keep and bear arms, I think we have both a right and a duty to demand that such a law be predicated on either success or automatic repeal.

  25. WillStarr profile image84
    WillStarrposted 2 years ago

    If you don't have a solution that you're willing to stand behind and guarantee, then you have no solution at all.

    It's just hot air.

    1. rhamson profile image75
      rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      lol

  26. WillStarr profile image84
    WillStarrposted 2 years ago

    "Concealed carry has only produced shootings and no deterrence."


    Where's your source for that false statement?

    The fact is, it's just the opposire:

    http://www.humanevents.com/2014/01/03/s … r-murders/

    1. rhamson profile image75
      rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Really? the NRA stance as a source? Okay here is one to refute it. There are just as many studies to refute both sides of the argument so if you must go this route here : http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories … crime.html
      We could go on like this with exactly the argument I outlined in my post. Do you have something original or more than an opinion by another source? Is there any room to find a middle ground?

  27. WillStarr profile image84
    WillStarrposted 2 years ago

    BTW, if an unarmed man assaults me, he too will probably get shot. You may not think that's 'fair', but that's the whole purpose of being armed.

    1. Sychophantastic profile image82
      Sychophantasticposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Btw, in the event that an armed or unarmed assailant tried to assault me or those who I love, I like the idea that me having a gun would stop them. Frankly, I like the idea of shooting some crazy person who's trying to hurt people. I just kind of don't trust other people that much to make those decisions. Gun control based on IQ might be a start.

      1. 59
        retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        How about Free speech by IQ test or voting or marrying or citizenship or employment or fertility?  Who will write the test?

        1. Castlepaloma profile image22
          Castlepalomaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Won't wok Lawyers and politician  have the highest IQ, it's what in the heart and kindness is what really counts.

          1. Castlepaloma profile image22
            Castlepalomaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Wok with man, said the Flintstones.
            I mean it won't work.

          2. 59
            retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            You mistake my meaning, my friend.  It was meant as a sarcastic response to the idea of IQ testing for gun ownership. In America this is a Constitutionally protected right.  If we subject all American's protected rights to IQ tests where does it end.

            The travails of a language barrier.

            1. Zelkiiro profile image84
              Zelkiiroposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              You say that as if that's a bad thing.

              As long as the IQ tests are comprehensive and not just "finish the pattern"-style crap, I'd be all in favor of turning everyone with an IQ less than ~110 into soylent green. Because soylent green is delicious.

              1. 0
                Motown2Chitownposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                "Soylent green is people!!!!!!!!!"

                wink

              2. Castlepaloma profile image22
                Castlepalomaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Wonder if someone IQ is somewhere that of a cow?

                Can we shoot them and eat them?

  28. WillStarr profile image84
    WillStarrposted 2 years ago

    "The fact remains Zimmerman confronted Martin through his actions and Martin felt threatened. Zimmerman as the one holding all the power prior to the altercation continued against better advice."

    Well, since you were obviously there that night and saw things that no one else knows happened, why didn't you just step in and put a stop to it?

    Again, all Martin had to do was go on home, and he'd still be alive. Instead, he decided to be macho and it got him killed.

    1. rhamson profile image75
      rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Did you not listen to the defenses argument? I guess you were there as an eye witness to what "really" happened. Once again your argument is predicated as how you want it to be and not what it was as outlined in the testimony of the defenses witness' who was on the phone at the time. As a good point to make for others in case they get into a situation like this, make sure there are no witness's present when the gun goes off. Sorry, making a villain out of the victim is an old tactic and works well for rape cases as well.

      1. WillStarr profile image84
        WillStarrposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Jurors gave very little weight to Rachel Jeantel's testimony because she is a known liar, including under oath. Her supposed phone conversation was first related to Trayvon Martin's parents in their home, and in their presence, which makes it all but worthless.

        What we know of this case is what we heard in the trial, and the verdict was self defense. You may not like that, but you can't spin it effectively because we all know better.

        My argument is predicated on the jury's verdict...not guilty. Your argument is predicated on what you and most other liberals want to believe...that the evil white guy gunned down the unarmed and innocent little black child, as the leftist media portrayed Trayvon Martin from the get-go. The jury didn't buy it and neither do I.

        You've already lost this argument because the jury has the last word, not you.

  29. Sychophantastic profile image82
    Sychophantasticposted 2 years ago

    So people fully support stupid people owning guns? And proposing an IQ test for free speech is hardly analogous to supporting one for gun ownership when the end result of one is death and the other is incoherent blabber. Should crazy people have guns too?

    And some of the comments about Trayvon Martin kid are just pure racism. 16-year-olds are not adults and are not capable of making the same decisions as adults. Some are, certainly, but psychologists will tell you that 16-year-olds are much more prone to making emotional, rationless decisions, which is why some states have started banning the execution of minors.

    But I guess the kid deserved to get shot.

    1. Sychophantastic profile image82
      Sychophantasticposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      And I'll just say this: if I had a gun and some kid jumped me and started beating me and I was capable of shooting him, I would.

      1. 59
        retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        ...and you would be justified in doing so, with the added bonus of being right.

        1. Castlepaloma profile image22
          Castlepalomaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          How about sueing them for assult, something would die in my soul, if I killed someone.

          Can't imagine running out of ideas to kill anyone

  30. WillStarr profile image84
    WillStarrposted 2 years ago

    "And proposing an IQ test for free speech is hardly analogous to supporting one for gun ownership when the end result of one is death and the other is incoherent blabber."

    Most gun murders in the US are committed by minority gang members, and they are preceded by loyalty to gangs, and that loyalty is the result of talk, AKA: free speech.

  31. Sychophantastic profile image82
    Sychophantasticposted 2 years ago

    I just read an interesting opinion piece by an African-American who said that blacks don't seem to be as concerned with the number of black people killing other black people as they are when a white person kills a black person.

    So I'll admit there's a point to be made there.

    1. WillStarr profile image84
      WillStarrposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      They, and the liberal left, are also not concerned when a black kills a white because they don't see that as racist. To them, only white on black crime is racist.

      1. rhamson profile image75
        rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        You know this is like the Hitler analogy that always meanders it's way into a conversation. Race is always at play and there was a great deal of finger pointing on both sides and nothing was resolved as usual. So it is a mute point and doesn't deserve a comment.

        On a different note I always find when discussing a topic such as gun violence with people that lean to the left, the view is to do away with them entirely. But when I talk to the right there is always the same arguments against any control with studies and the "real" inside scoop as to whatever point is salient in their defense of it. And they hold onto their story at all costs even to the ridiculousness of it all. If they could only hear themselves.

  32. WillStarr profile image84
    WillStarrposted 2 years ago

    "You know this is like the Hitler analogy that always meanders it's way into a conversation."

    And guess who 'meandered' it in? That would be you.

    1. rhamson profile image75
      rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Very clever. Ignore the content and switch the blame. The problem is that you wish to defend the indefensible. An innocent man was shot while being stalked by the assailant and the funny thing is you have fallen into the same trap by ignoring the content and switching the blame. Do you see a patterm here?

      1. WillStarr profile image84
        WillStarrposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        So says the man who ignores the trial verdict and switches the blame.

        1. rhamson profile image75
          rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          And you base the trial as a testament of the truth? Remember lady justice is blindfolded. Guess who helps tie the knot? The lawyers. This trial wreaked of injustice as Zimmerman told his story to the all white jury of women as the only eye witness. The same type of trial the O.J. verdict came down with an innocent verdict because the witness's are dead. I am sorry but basing your argument on a justice system that has put us in this predicament is not a good way for you to go.

          1. WillStarr profile image84
            WillStarrposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Sour grapes. You wanted the 'evil white guy with a gun' to be convicted whether he was guilty or not, just like all the other liberals. When he was not, you liberals were enraged, because the jury dared to side with the armed white guy and find it was an act of self defense.

            George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin because Martin was trying to beat him to death. Live with it.

            1. rhamson profile image75
              rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Thank you for branding me a liberal. It is far easier in your mind to limit the thought process to one or the other type of person and define the enemy. That thinking is what is the problem. The inability to tackle this problem from a neutral objective position dooms the conversation. So I guess since you have "identified" me as one of those people any further conversation is fruitless. By the way I defend your and all other law biding citizens the right to have and use a firearm as is your constitutional right. If you don't mind I would like it now if you would continue ignoring me as your first post outlined. Thank you for your participation never the less.

              1. Castlepaloma profile image22
                Castlepalomaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                I accept their rights as wrtten the the right to bare arms.

                Just like when the guns were muskets and balls and even animals had a chance.

  33. WillStarr profile image84
    WillStarrposted 2 years ago

    "But when I talk to the right there is always the same arguments against any control..."

    I've been discussing the topic for years, and never once have I ever heard anyone on the right saying there should be no controls. We support reasonable restrictions like prohibiting the possession of guns to felons and the insane, or carrying guns into courtrooms, legislatures, and police stations.

    1. 84
      Education Answerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      That's a good point.  So many in the Left want to make conservatives seem like extremists.  Hyperbole is their debate tool.

  34. WillStarr profile image84
    WillStarrposted 2 years ago

    The Zimmerman/Martin case comes down to one thing...who threw the first blow. If that was Martin, and all evidence says it was, then it was self defense on Zimmerman's part. That's the crux of the case and that's why the jury ruled the way it did.

    All Trayvon Martin had to do was walk a few feet further and he would have been home. Instead, he chose to pursue, confront, and attack Zimmerman. That foolish bravado cost him his life.

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Irrelevant.  What you're forgetting is that one of those horrible "gun" thingies jumped out of the bushes and shot him dead for no reason at all.  We must therefore rid the country of guns.  Or require they be locked up at home.  Or, preferably, melt them all into plowshares.

      Isn't that what the thread is about, after all?

      1. WillStarr profile image84
        WillStarrposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        When 99.9998% of Americans will not be shot in their lifetime, there is no gun crisis, so the anti-freedom, anti-Second Amendment politicians have to create one. There is no need for a 'gun bracelet',  because there is no crisis there either. The 'bad guy takes the gun away from the trembling woman and shoots her with it' is pure Hollywood nonsense.

        Requiring a gun owner to put on a bracelet in the middle of the night so his weapon will fire is liberal absurdity at its best.

        1. Castlepaloma profile image22
          Castlepalomaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Are these bracelet come in watch size and comfort and for mean drunks too.

          I'm not anti anything, never voted because they both seem to be the same, 2 parties, lots to choose there.mmmm.

      2. rhamson profile image75
        rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Good point but not relevant to the current conversation. We can belabor your point if you wish and I believe your point is that no legislation to limit the purchase of weapons by criminals will curb the violence. I believe your last post mentioned something about arming the police with automatic weapons and killing on the spot any offenders that challenge them with a gun or other weapon. Further innocent lives that may be lost as a result would be acceptable because the end result would justify the means? Did you really means this or were you just joking as some others stated?

        By the way welcome back to the conversation, I hope all is well with you.

        1. Castlepaloma profile image22
          Castlepalomaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          You pretty well know my stand, handguns are useless until you want to kill something.

          You kill someone , it's game over, no more playing of any kind.

        2. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          All is good - just out of town a few days with no internet.

          Yes, I vaguely remember that conversation (too lazy to look it up) that cops should immediately shoot to kill when a gun is sighted - a ridiculous solution to a ridiculous question as I recall.  Certainly not meant to be taken seriously.

          1. rhamson profile image75
            rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            WillStarr wrote:
            “99.998% of the legally owned guns in the US will never be used to shoot anyone, so why would you punish the law-abiding?
            So what do you propose that would actually work? Tell us what law you would pass that you guarantee will stop criminals from committing gun murders.”

            This was your reply to WillStarr

            "Issue all cops a fully automatic SAW and shoot to kill orders at the first sign of a gun.  It will go a long way towards stopping gun murders, even if it won't affect the overall murder rate. 
            You'll have some collateral damage but, hey, the rate of gun murders will fall and victims of stabbings, car bombs, bludgeonings and other weapons can take solace in that they were never shot.  And we could reasonably expect the collateral damage to ease off to only a few thousand per year after a few years of shooting anyone with a gun. 
            It will work in reducing the number of guns out there, and a few thousand innocent lives each year is a cheap price to pay for that!"

            1. Castlepaloma profile image22
              Castlepalomaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Wow, issue fully automantic SAW guns to kill. Already this is a Police State that  kills more people than the bad guys do.

              What next after that,  a swift kick in the balls for parking tickets and jay walking.

  35. WillStarr profile image84
    WillStarrposted 2 years ago

    "This trial wreaked of injustice as Zimmerman told his story to the all white jury of women as the only eye witness."

    (sigh)

    George Zimmerman did not tell ' his story to the all white jury of women', because he did not testify. You didn't even get that part right!

    1. rhamson profile image75
      rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      (Heavy Sigh) Why can't you think beyond the literal. No he did not testify but his lawyer did tell the story! Now does that make you happy. And that is why the trial was fraught with deception. What did Zimmerman fear he would say on the stand? We shall never know as he hid behind his lawyers spin of the events. Recent events in his life show what an idiot he is and bears the take on his stupid behavior.

      1. WillStarr profile image84
        WillStarrposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz said from the beginning that the Zimmerman incident was a simple case of self defense, that the prosecution had no case, that it was politically motivated, and that Zimmerman would be acquitted.

        He was right on all counts. You are wrong on all counts.

        Case closed.

        Literally.

        1. rhamson profile image75
          rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          As I said with one witness we will never know. The first thing anyone should do when they commit a crime is to make sure there are no witness's. Zimmerman at least got that right. And obviously the case isn't closed as you still defend a murderer because he told a one sided story. Sorry to disappoint you but juries don't always get it right and who cares what Alan Dershowitz had to say. You quote somebody from the OJ Simpson debacle? Wow, now I really know your point is mute.

      2. Castlepaloma profile image22
        Castlepalomaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        rhamson

        I don't think your right,

        I think your more balanced

        1. rhamson profile image75
          rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          As is your choice and that is what makes this country great. You see it your way and I see it mine and I respect that. What I have a problem with is flawed thought based on shaky analysis of the facts. Then armed with that the person tries to convince me I am wrong in exploring different avenues to rectify the problem. In the meantime they have no clear answer. How ridiculous that is.

          1. Castlepaloma profile image22
            Castlepalomaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            From my studing of human history the better answers are more often in the middle, making adjustments. When extremes go at it, more often the solutions take longer.

  36. WillStarr profile image84
    WillStarrposted 2 years ago

    "As I said with one witness we will never know."

    On the contrary, there were several witnesses and Martin was seen on top of Zimmerman.

    "The first thing anyone should do when they commit a crime is to make sure there are no witness's. Zimmerman at least got that right."

    Obviously he did no such thing. There were several witnesses.

    "And obviously the case isn't closed as you still defend a murderer because he told a one sided story."

    A non-sequitur. Look it up

    "Sorry to disappoint you but juries don't always get it right and who cares what Alan Dershowitz had to say. You quote somebody from the OJ Simpson debacle? Wow, now I really know your point is mute."

    The word is 'moot', not mute, and the case is very much closed as we are protected from double jeopardy in the US.

    You obviously don't have any of your facts right on this case and know very little about it. Your claims have all been rebutted one by one.

    And BTW, I'll take Dershowitz's very scholarly and respected opinion over yours any day. You obviously have neither the credentials nor the chops.

    1. rhamson profile image75
      rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I will tell you what. Lets just agree to disagree. You are reading transcripts from some other trial as they don't match anything in the public record and your rebuttals are far from factual. Where you really lost me is when you chose to put stock in a slimebag lawyer that's duty is to cloud the facts and taint the evidence to get his client off. No not George but OJ (because I wouldn't want you to lose your train of thought). I thank you for ignoring me again.

  37. WillStarr profile image84
    WillStarrposted 2 years ago

    First you say:

    "I will tell you what. Lets just agree to disagree."

    But then you ignore your own words with this little diatribe:

    "You are reading transcripts from some other trial as they don't match anything in the public record and your rebuttals are far from factual. Where you really lost me is when you chose to put stock in a slimebag lawyer that's duty is to cloud the facts and taint the evidence to get his client off. No not George but OJ (because I wouldn't want you to lose your train of thought). I thank you for ignoring me again."

    It is a lawyer's sworn duty to present a good defense for his client, even if that client is not a nice guy. That does not make the lawyer a 'slimebag'. However, I'm not surprised that you didn't know that, since there are so many things you obviously do not know.

    I'm also not surprised that you did not know that there were several witnesses to the altercation between Zimmerman and Martin, because you obviously have an agenda and little to no interest in the truth.

    1. rhamson profile image75
      rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      The altercation has nothing to do with who picked the fight. Zimmerman clearly chased Martin and when the confrontation took place one of them wound up dead. Martin did not know who the assailant was and he was in a fight for his life. Zimmerman was told to not follow him by the dispatcher. If you have ever been in a fight you would know that there is no telling how far the other person is willing to take the fight therefore it is a fight to the finish. Your argument is ridiculous and the officer of the court dribble is as there are many death row convicts who have been railroaded into a death sentence because of unscrupulous tactics.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SO0oyDFS4Jo

      Have a listen to the recording of that night and see who pursued who to lead up to the confrontation. Did Martin beat the hell out of Zimmerman? Yeah but who was the first to stand his ground you have to ask yourself. When cornered Martin was in it to save his own life. Your take on this is ludicrous to say the least.

  38. WillStarr profile image84
    WillStarrposted 2 years ago

    Back to the topic:

    There is no gun crisis and no justification for the Eric Holder/Barack Obama bracelet nonsense. 

    Most gun deaths are suicides, and no one has proved to me that taking away guns will stop people from being suicidal. That's nonsense. The highest suicide rate in the world is in Japan where guns are almost unknown.

    Most gun homicides are young blacks and Hispanics killing other young blacks and Hispanics, and again, no one can show me how disarming law abiding citizens will stop ghetto and Barrio crime. In fact, merely pointing out who is killing whom is deemed racist, because that slaughter is supposed to be a secret that liberals are willfully hiding because they can't or won't stop it.

    The hysteria over thousands of children being accidentally killed by firearms is not only a myth, it's a damn lie! According to the CDC records in the last year recorded, accidental firearm deaths ages 1 through 12 was just 42.

    42.

    42 out of a population of 100,000,000 children is an unbelievably tiny percentage, but it's still 42 too many and we are working on improving even that.

    There is no gun crisis. There's a minority crisis to be sure, but liberal have little to no interest in that.

  39. WillStarr profile image84
    WillStarrposted 2 years ago

    This is not complicated. Zimmerman saw a suspicious looking character and called 911. During that call, the dispatcher told Zimmerman to let them know what Martin was doing. I suspect that's why he got out and tried to keep him in sight. After the dispatcher told Zimmerman that he did not need him to follow Martin, Zimmerman lost sight of Martin and started back to his truck. That's when Martin confronted and attacked Zimmerman.

    Now that's what came out in the trial, so if you choose to believe some other and unsubstantiated scenario, that's up to you.

    In the timeline, from the moment Zimmerman lost sight of Martin until Martin confronted him, Trayvon Martin had more than enough time to simply walk home. Instead, like many macho young teens, he decided to confront Zimmerman and beat the hell out of him. After all, he liked to fight. But this time, it got him killed.

    The moral of the story is to avoid a confrontation if at all possible.

    All that is in the court record, so your opinion is not worth a bucket of warm spit.

    1. Castlepaloma profile image22
      Castlepalomaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I'm sure glad the other Super Power in the world today is "Global Pubic Opinion"

      The America MilItary and Prison Complex Super POWER is fast loosing their ground. Who want to live in fear of a fool with a Gun or Nukes anymore.

      Why are bullets shaped like a small penis?

      1. 84
        Education Answerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        "Why are bullets shaped like a small penis?"

        Seriously?

        1. WillStarr profile image84
          WillStarrposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          It's liberal psycho-babble...if you are a gun owner, it's because you have a small penis.

          I'm not sure what they say about a female gun owner.

          1. Zelkiiro profile image84
            Zelkiiroposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Well, if you want to get technical, women do have a "small penis." The functionality is entirely different, but it's there.

          2. 84
            Education Answerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            I have to agree. 

            The debate has really taken a downward turn in quality. . .

    2. rhamson profile image75
      rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Well it is complete now. You have selective hearing as well as selective understanding. I can't help you as your bias has seriously impeded your ability to discern the reading materials and what your ears hear. Please continue to ignore me as you stated "EVERYBODY" does at the beginning of our journey through the fantasy you call facts.

      1. WillStarr profile image84
        WillStarrposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I gave you the facts of the case as gleaned from the trial records. Those facts were why the jury ruled self defense and found Zimmerman not guilty.

        In turn, you gave us hyperbole, personal insults, and another tantrum.

        I reserve the right to correct you when needed. You don't need to thank me.

        1. rhamson profile image75
          rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          You can hide behind all the information "gleaned" from your studies and you haven't proved one thing.

          Let me break it down for you as nobody seems to want to talk about the Pink Elephant" in the room. This is a colossal failure for the concealed carry proponents (a cops nightmare). Why you may ask? Because you have a cop wannabe who has reported as much as fifty other "suspicious characters" targeting a kid armed with Skittles and a bottle of iced tea, walking home from the convenience store in his fathers home neighborhood. The wannabe makes a another call to the police who respond by saying they are on the way, (his neighborhood watch duty ends at that point) and proceeds to ignore the police dispatcher and follows Martin. Martin then having realized he is being followed not by the police but a stranger in a truck decides to run away from the situation having done nothing to provoke the stranger who says he has something in his waist band (baggy pants need to be pulled up once in a while). Based on what evidence we shall never know and absolutely not based on any training such as a police officer, the next thing we know is there is an altercation in someone's back yard. Why in somebodies back yard you may ask? Who knows but you would have us believe it was to attack Zimmerman who ran after him there. Logic would make a case of either hiding was on Martins mind or he did not know there was no escape having only been in the neighborhood a short time. The next thing we know is that someone is getting beat up with a gunshot at the end. Martin is dead and we only have Zimmerman's take of the events after he chased Martin. You have nothing more than that. As far as witness's (which are highly unreliable as proven in so many courtrooms) the events are pieced together by a defense attorney.
          Why are you changing the events to fit your point. Because the Pink Elephant of concealed carry was the thing that resulted in an end to an INNOCENT persons life. You can argue it any way you like that a jury exonerated Zimmerman when in effect there was only one story that exonerated him, his. We see how unreliable his tips were and a willful disregard he has for police instruction as well as a conniving personality (his bond was revoked for misleading statements on his assets to pay his bond) that questions whether he related any truth (remember he is the witness) regardless of the outcome.

          This stinks from jump and the only reason after many weak arguments about officers of the court, jury results of six white women, and if the victim was a punk do not conceal what your biggest fear is and that is the concealed carry issue that sparked this whole fiasco of your diatribe into your loosely and manipulated "facts".

          Sorry my friend it is a good tactic to confront the issue head on but to taint the opponent with innuendo and forgone conclusions is weak. As all you are doing is exposing your real motive which is in line with most gun advocates and especially concealed carry and that is to fight to the bitter end beyond logic and ethics anyone questioning the rights of a gun owner. Sorry but you lose with your ridiculous argument.

          1. WillStarr profile image84
            WillStarrposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            On the contrary, I do win because the jury saw it the way I saw it, not your way.

            I'm just amazed that a seemingly smart guy like you would simply dismiss all the known evidence and even the witness's statements if they don't fit your anti-gun agenda. Your entire diatribe is based entirely on your own personal biases and your desired outcome. If a fact doesn't fit your tortured 'logic', you simply pretend it does not exist.

            With that, I'm not at all surprised that you see 'pink elephants'. Not surprised at all.

            1. rhamson profile image75
              rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I love the way you "try" to debunk everything with a finger pointing the other way. A weak defense at best and makes no point whatsoever. Even when logic gob smacks you in the face you continue on with your delusions. As has been stated many ways and many times, a jury is not the proof of truth! It is merely a group of your pears deciding your fate. Zimmerman was the only witness to the murder so it weighed heavily on the jurors mind and the opposite was not provable. Did it go down like that? Only Zimmerman knows for sure. It does not prove that he didn't do something wrong in the process as the mitigating circumstances were embellished by the defense in the consideration of his fate. The prosecution was lazy and inept as happens a lot in these cases (OJ and Casey Anthony as examples). Have you ever served on a jury? Have you ever been on a ride along with the police? I hope you get the chance as it will enlighten you and open your eyes wide open to what really goes down rather than the digested screwed up mess that comes out in the end. No my friend you have not proven a thing nor won anything as you have to experience a little more life to "get" what I am talking about. Mind you that is not age specific.

          2. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Do you feel that massive spin and attempts to misguide and give wrong impressions is the proper way to communicate? 

            Because:
            1) "cop wannabe" is rather derogatory, for no discernible reason.
            2) Listing what Martin was armed with, AFTER it became knowledge but before Zimmerman could possibly know is a nice touch. 
            3) Mentioning it is his father's home neighborhood but failing to mention Martin doesn't live there and was unknown to habituate the area is also a nice touch.  A little (lot) misrepresentative of the facts, but that's all right.
            4) Back yard?  I've lived in many houses and never once had a sidewalk in the back yard that I could slam a head into.  Are you sure of this, or just spreading rumors?
            5) Nothing "exonerated" Zimmerman, and to imply he needed "exoneration" is a gross miscarriage of the idea of "innocent until proven guilty". 
            6) To insinuate Zimmerman was guilty even after one of the best prosecutors in the country failed to prove it, by claiming that officers of the court had weak arguments, Martin was a punk and the jury was the wrong sex is a little beyond the pale, don't you think?  But it's all about insinuation and emotion, not fact, to some people...

            1. rhamson profile image75
              rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              1) "cop wannabe" is rather derogatory, for no discernible reason.

              This was a term used by the prosecution you so eloquently praise.

              2) Listing what Martin was armed with, AFTER it became knowledge but before Zimmerman could possibly know is a nice touch.

              A cop could discern the difference. Oh wait Zimmerman was not a cop and was told to stand down. The results clearly speak for themselves.

              3) Mentioning it is his father's home neighborhood but failing to mention Martin doesn't live there and was unknown to habituate the area is also a nice touch.  A little (lot) misrepresentative of the facts, but that's all right.

              I thought your comprehensive skills were a wee bit better than that. There is a reason I called it his father's neighborhood. Get it? Being his fathers neighborhood meant he did not live there.

              4) Back yard?  I've lived in many houses and never once had a sidewalk in the back yard that I could slam a head into.  Are you sure of this, or just spreading rumors?

              Listen to the recording as the witness's who called it in referred to the incident taking place in their back yard. Have a listen for yourself. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SO0oyDFS4Jo

              5) Nothing "exonerated" Zimmerman, and to imply he needed "exoneration" is a gross miscarriage of the idea of "innocent until proven guilty". 

              Ridiculous. He shot an unarmed man. Thus exoneration was needed to prove his innocence because he was initially let go and then arrested there was a shadow cast over his story.

              6) To insinuate Zimmerman was guilty even after one of the best prosecutors in the country failed to prove it, by claiming that officers of the court had weak arguments, Martin was a punk and the jury was the wrong sex is a little beyond the pale, don't you think?  But it's all about insinuation and emotion, not fact, to some people...

              And the opposite be true of the concealed carry advocates that are scared any admission of wrongdoing on Zimmerman's part could impair their rights to concealed carry. Where are you in the middle of this? Justice for all or just the one's that deserve it.

              1. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                The prosecution uses it in an effort to affect emotions and that means it is not derogatory?  Or that you aren't trying to do the same thing?

                "A cop could discern the difference"  From a block away, on a dark rainy night?  BS - even you cannot possibly believe that.

                "There is a reason I called it his father's neighborhood. Get it? Being his fathers neighborhood meant he did not live there"  Sorry - I lived in my father's neighborhood for some 19 years.  Most people do, and will NOT pick up that "father's neighborhood" means they don't live there.  Or maybe I'm just stupid.

                Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?  If it has anything to do with the terrible GUN thing, one is automatically guilty until proven innocent?

                All in all, thought, a right nice spin job.  You should look into politics.

                1. rhamson profile image75
                  rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Sorry if I called the murderer a cop wannabe. Maybe he would prefer it to having to live with his lies and the murder of an innocent unarmed boy.

                  As far as a cop discerning whether or not Martin was packing, I would rather trust the training and experience of a real cop and that he would have handled it a lot better than a citizens watch idiot that shot an innocent boy even after being told to stop following him. Maybe procedure and experience was behind the order as a precaution from something happening with an untrained idiot. See a recurring theme here? Zimmerman killed an unarmed boy. Let me say it again in case you did not understand. Zimmerman killed an unarmed boy.

                  " Sorry - I lived in my father's neighborhood for some 19 years.  Most people do, and will NOT pick up that "father's neighborhood" means they don't live there.  Or maybe I'm just stupid."

                  I am sorry if my articulation of the exact neighborhood was unclear to you but I wanted to get the point across that he was not as familiar with the place as if it was where he lived for a lengthy time. Don't be so hard on yourself. I know you were just looking to pick apart my answer. lol

                  Zimmerman was presumed innocent and given the benefit of the doubt by getting bail (which he screwed up) and a trial as he was guaranteed by the Constitution. Does that mean he was innocent? Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining if you believe a jury gets it right all the time. This has nothing to do with the gun as somehow you believe that is my implication. Zimmerman lawfully owned the gun so what's the problem? He pursued a self proclaimed suspect, tracked him down and whoops the suspect got killed. The gun was only the finishing touch in how screwed up he made the situation.

                  As far as politics I don't know. Maybe I do have a flair in there somewhere but I know you would be good at writing fiction. smile

  40. WillStarr profile image84
    WillStarrposted 2 years ago

    "Zimmerman was the only witness to the murder so it weighed heavily on the jurors mind and the opposite was not provable. Did it go down like that? Only Zimmerman knows for sure."

    That is why we assume that someone is innocent until proven guilty, and the prosecution failed to do that.

    In any case, I'm glad you finally admitted that you really don't know what happened or whether or not Zimmerman was guilty.

    Now don't you feel better?

    " It is merely a group of your pears deciding your fate."

    Better than a group of your apples or your bananas I suppose.

    (Or did you mean a jury of your 'peers'?)

    1. rhamson profile image75
      rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      "That is why we assume that someone is innocent until proven guilty, and the prosecution failed to do that."

      It is a shame you still don't get it and twisting phrases to accomplish it is disingenuous at best. I am sorry for you.

      "In any case, I'm glad you finally admitted that you really don't know what happened or whether or not Zimmerman was guilty.
      Now don't you feel better?"

      Admit what? The fact that the murderer got away with it. Really still twisting I see. Once again I am sorry for your take on this. I hope that if wronged in the future nothing like this would happen to you or your loved ones.

      "Better than a group of your apples or your bananas I suppose.
      (Or did you mean a jury of your 'peers'?)"

      If you are on the right side of ducking a murder charge I guess. I am amazed at how bias your opinions are with a murderer let loose. But I guess if it comes to protecting YOUR rights all comes out well in the wash for you.

  41. WillStarr profile image84
    WillStarrposted 2 years ago

    "...the murder of an innocent unarmed boy."

    I'm curious. Are you denying that Trayvon Martin assaulted George Zimmerman with a sucker punch? Are you denying that Trayvon Martin threw the first punch?

    If so, where's your evidence? And if Trayvon did throw the first punch, would you still claim he was 'innocent'?

    BTW, when you are using a concrete sidewalk as an anvil in an attempt to crush someone's skull, you have armed yourself with that concrete, in the same way you would arm yourself with a convenient rock or a hammer. And do I also have to point out that Trayvon Martin armed himself with that concrete before he knew that Zimmerman was armed?

    I would appreciate some direct answers this time around.

    1. rhamson profile image75
      rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I'm curious. Are you denying that Trayvon Martin assaulted George Zimmerman with a sucker punch? Are you denying that Trayvon Martin threw the first punch?

      So it comes down to once cornered and fearing for his life who threw the first punch? Who cares! George Zimmerman set the wheels in motion for that innocent boys murder when he labeled him a suspect (with his vast years of police experience )wink And followed him against the directions of the police dispatcher. Martin ran away if you recall. It was only after Zimmerman caught up to Martin when the altercation began. How was Martin to know who Zimmerman was and what harm he intended? If Martin threw the first punch what does it matter? He was a scared boy making the best decisions he was equipped to make given his maturity level. On the other hand Zimmerman a 28 year old man, vested with the responsibility as a neighborhood watchman, was supposed to act more responsibly and cut off his pursuit as he was directed to. What authority was Zimmerman acting under? Certainly not the police, and if not the police, the neighborhood watch group after being told to not follow Martin?


      BTW, when you are using a concrete sidewalk as an anvil in an attempt to crush someone's skull, you have armed yourself with that concrete, in the same way you would arm yourself with a convenient rock or a hammer. And do I also have to point out that Trayvon Martin armed himself with that concrete before he knew that Zimmerman was armed?

      A ridiculous argument if ever I heard one. A street fight has rules? The guy that just chased you down for no apparent reason deserves the right to throw the first punch kind of etiquette thing? Were they marking off twenty paces or waiting for the ding of the bell to come out swinging? What kind of identification did Zimmerman give Martin? Did he show him a badge? Maybe a photo ID? Have you ever been in a fight that you felt was for your life? You grab a 2x4, or a rock or something more than your opponent.

      I would appreciate some direct answers this time around.

      The only person that can answer your questions directly is guess who? Zimmerman, and he isn't talking. Why should he? He got away with murder.

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        "Fearing for his life"?  By coming back and starting a fight?  Not hardly.

        Who cares?  The law cares.  Meaning the people of the United States.

        "caught up to Martin"?  You mean when Martin doubled back and caught up to Zimmerman?

        Martin doesn't need to know who Zimmerman is - he just needed to go home instead of coming back to assault him.

        A civvie telling Zimmerman what to do carries no more weight than it would if YOU told him.  And the 911 dispatcher is not a police member.  Just another civilian.

        Zimmerman doesn't need anyone's "authority" to walk down the street.  Not even yours.

        The guy that chased you down?  You ARE referring to Martin, catching up with Zimmerman on the way back to his truck, right?

        Zimmerman is under no requirement to give ID any more than Martin was (and if either one had done so there would not have been a corpse that night). 

        No, I have never started a fight where I was in fear for my life.  Unlike Martin, I've never been that stupid.

        Zimmerman already talked.  And told the only story you will ever hear - do you expect him to now recant and say "Oh yes, rhamson was right all along and I ambushed that poor little boy, shooting him down in cold blood from behind"?

        1. rhamson profile image75
          rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Ridiculous. You cherry pick things to try and contradict in an all or nothing scenario. You don't address the main topic and wind your way through a series of innuendo to make some point. There is so much conjecture based on the only eyewitness telling the story who happens to be the murderer. Am I to accept that he is telling the truth as he is on the hot seat for the murder. There is testimony that refutes what you claim and there is the phone calls that set it up that don't jive with your assertions. You raise too many fallacies to even begin to address them.

          Bottom line is George Zimmerman the murderer got away with murder.

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            No, YOU cherry picked.  I just responded to each and every one of your ridiculous comments.

            You don't have a choice except to accept it as truth - that's the way our justice system works.  Unless you are making up your own system, whereby rhamson is judge, jury and executioner without ever having been there or witnessed what happened?

            And no, the bottom line is that Zimmerman was determined by a jury of his peers to be innocent of murder.  Rhamson declares different, but of course rhamson is not a part of the justice system and doesn't care what the law is.

            1. rhamson profile image75
              rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Your nanny-nanny-boo-boo pointing the finger back at me just shows how ridiculous your claims are.
              Bang on your chest all that you wish. It does not prove the justice system is infallible in this country. What it does prove that given the right attorney, the right story and the right jury you can get away with murder in this country. And George Zimmerman murdered an innocent boy that rainy night in Florida.

  42. WillStarr profile image84
    WillStarrposted 2 years ago

    "The guy that chased you down?  You ARE referring to Martin, catching up with Zimmerman on the way back to his truck, right?"

    Exactly. After the dispatcher advised Zimmerman (he had no authority to order anyone to do anything because he was not a cop!) that they did not need him to follow Martin, Zimmerman started back to his truck as is clearly indicated on the 911 recording. At that point Zimmerman was no longer following Martin and all Martin had to do was walk a few feet to his home. Instead, he chose to follow and confront Zimmerman, a foolish act that cost him his life.

    That's the part that rhamson ignores, because it proves him wrong.

    1. rhamson profile image75
      rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      "She heard Trayvon running and could hear the wind. Trayvon said that he lost the guy. Then, he told her the guy was coming closer to him. She heard Trayvon say “Why you following me for?” An old man said, “What are you doing around here?”

      This was the witness testimony about the confrontation. She kind of left out the part about him hiding in the bushes. Because it did not happen.

      I could go on all day throwing bombs at your theories, yes theories as they are based on one persons testimony. The murderer George Zimmerman

      1. WillStarr profile image84
        WillStarrposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        1) This woman is a confirmed liar, having perjured herself twice while under oath.

        2) She also claimed she could hear the sound of wet grass over the phone. You and I both know better than that.

        We do know from the 911 transcript that Zimmerman was on his way back to his truck, after the 911 operator advised him that he did not need to follow Martin. After he ended the call, Martin confronted and attacked him.

        1. rhamson profile image75
          rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          So you now believe one liar over another kid who gave poor testimony because of confusion. Once again selective reasoning on your part. The pathetic thing is that you really do believe this crap. I have showed you time and time again loose ends and deception in this case and you either don't address it, don't believe it or demonize the person who said it all the while upholding a murderers account of the events in trying to avoid a conviction. There was so much the jury was not allowed to hear because of the defense attorneys well orchestrated presentation that the jury had half the case at hand to make a verdict. Even if I could come up with a picture showing proof of Zimmerman's willful disregard and ultimate mistake you would not believe it.

  43. WillStarr profile image84
    WillStarrposted 2 years ago

    "And no, the bottom line is that Zimmerman was determined by a jury of his peers to be innocent of murder.  Rhamson declares different, but of course rhamson is not a part of the justice system and doesn't care what the law is."

    Like so many others who wanted the evil white guy found guilty, he's in denial and doesn't care what a jury decided after hearing all the evidence. He wants Zimmerman to be guilty and that's that.

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Not so much wants, but has declared him guilty without having the faintest notion (or care) if it is true or not. 

      But he's not alone - a great many people in this country would hang Zimmerman out to dry, lock him away forever, because a black "kid" attacked him and was pounding his head into mush.  Enough reason to convict in too many minds.

      1. Castlepaloma profile image22
        Castlepalomaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I don't know about Zimmerman case.

        One time a cop had cocked his gun at my head, because he thought we had drugs. He was so upset,  I'm sure he would have killed me, If I did not convince him (in Spanish) he would loose his job if he killed me.

      2. rhamson profile image75
        rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I knew the racial thing was an undertone with you. Thank you for clearing this up. Much makes sense now.

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          There was a racial "undertone" to this case from the time the network modified and spun the 911 call to insinuate Zimmerman was concerned about color (remember that?  He was asked the color but the question was deleted from the record when it was put on the air).

          If you go back to previous threads here, you will find several posters claiming Zimmerman did whatever it is he did because Martin was black; were he white Zimmerman would not have followed him.  The same sentiment was found all over the web and even in print.

          So yes, there was a definite, nasty undertone of racism.  One that I argued against for hours until I gave up; a racist will not change their mind based on reason.

          1. rhamson profile image75
            rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            I am sorry I can't help you as you refuse to accept any other avenue of thought based on some convoluted story pieced together by the murderer and reasoned by a half informed jury. Justify as you must then.

  44. WillStarr profile image84
    WillStarrposted 2 years ago

    "There was so much the jury was not allowed to hear because of the defense attorneys well orchestrated presentation that the jury had half the case at hand to make a verdict."


    Like what? What evidence was the jury not allowed to hear?

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Apparently the part that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman is guilty of murder.

      Odd that one of the best prosecutors in the country allowed that to happen, isn't it?

    2. rhamson profile image75
      rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I can't help you if your reading on the trial was limited to what you draw your conclusions from. Perhaps a comprehensive study may open your eyes to the whole trial. You have a block when it comes to my explanations so if you are curious as to the other side of the story I suggest you investigate it further on your own. I am done with trying to help you. you are lost in this.

  45. WillStarr profile image84
    WillStarrposted 2 years ago

    "Once again selective reasoning on your part"

    The irony.

  46. WillStarr profile image84
    WillStarrposted 2 years ago

    The Martin/Zimmerman case was a bellwether to excited liberals because they thought it would prove once and for all that:

    1) White men are racist pigs

    and that

    2) The right to keep and bear arms is a license to murder and ought to be repealed.

    That's why they were so enraged and in denial after a jury heard both the evidence and the arguments and decided that Zimmerman was viciously attacked by Martin and that he shot him in self defense.

    Most Americans now believe that the new racism is not white on black at all. According to a recent poll, the new racism is black on white, and that is supported by blacks:

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ … _hispanics

    While is true that over 50% of the victims of gun murders today are young black males, their killers are not whites at all. Their killers are other young black males. a fact that liberals do not like to discuss.

    Anti-Second Amendment liberals cannot support their arguments with statistics, facts, and evidence, so they rely on baseless hyperbole and emotional appeals, as we have seen here,

    1. 84
      Education Answerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      "While is true that over 50% of the victims of gun murders today are young black males, their killers are not whites at all. Their killers are other young black males. a fact that liberals do not like to discuss."

      Beware of the race card.  You've stepped over the line, and a liberal might just call you some names for pointing out a statistical truth.

      If we could address this issue, our murder rate, drug usage, and incarceration rates would all improve while helping people get out of financial turmoil.  Instead, we blame it on guns and avoid the real issues.

      1. Castlepaloma profile image22
        Castlepalomaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Oh my God and Guns!!!

      2. WillStarr profile image84
        WillStarrposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Hi, Education answer,

        The black on back slaughter going on in our nation's inner cities is a national disgrace, not just because it's happening, but because we as a country are largely ignoring it, and we are ignoring it because pointing it out is indeed considered racist.

        That is where political correctness has brought us. Young black males are dying needlessly because we are afraid to speak up lest we be labeled 'racist'.

        You are right of course. I have already been called a racist for criticizing us, as a nation, for ignoring the misery, poverty, and death that awaits blacks who are not fortunate enough to escape the ghetto culture of sex, drugs, out of wedlock births, and early death.

        So be it. I will not be silent.

  47. WillStarr profile image84
    WillStarrposted 2 years ago

    "There was so much the jury was not allowed to hear because of the defense attorneys well orchestrated presentation that the jury had half the case at hand to make a verdict."


    Like what? What evidence was the jury not allowed to hear?

    "I can't help you if your reading on the trial was limited to what you draw your conclusions from. Perhaps a comprehensive study may open your eyes to the whole trial. You have a block when it comes to my explanations so if you are curious as to the other side of the story I suggest you investigate it further on your own. I am done with trying to help you. you are lost in this."

    In other words, you can't come up with any evidence that the jury was not allowed to hear. All you have are your own beliefs based on your own, very biased opinion. Like so many others, you want Zimmerman to be guilty no matter what.

    Got it.

    1. rhamson profile image75
      rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      You have a funny way of looking at things. Nothing I have given you holds up to your retorts of liar, twister of facts and put-ons so the comprehension I was hoping for was that you would investigate all the facts for yourself. But now I see that is too much to ask. If you mean you are too lazy to find out for yourself then I guess you did "Get It".

      1. WillStarr profile image84
        WillStarrposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Except that I never called you any of those names or anything else. I simply stated the facts of the case as we know them, while you gave us nothing but your own, very biased opinion.

        You've been called, but you're not holding any cards at all so you're trying to bluff your way out. It's not working.

        1. rhamson profile image75
          rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Thank you for proof of your diligence. The only thing you have proved is your stubbornness to objectively or competently argue a point. I've had enough thanks. Now you can switch this back on me as I know you want to smile

  48. WillStarr profile image84
    WillStarrposted 2 years ago

    Like the state of Florida, you have accused George Zimmerman of murdering Trayvon Martin. In our country, the burden of proof rests on the accusers, which would be Florida, or in this case, you.

    So prove it with hard evidence, or admit that all you really have is a burning hate for Zimmerman and incoherent blather in lieu of evidence, because so far, that's all you have presented .

    Florida failed to prove it, and so have you.

    1. rhamson profile image75
      rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Very good then. Good day smile

  49. WillStarr profile image84
    WillStarrposted 2 years ago

    Exactly.

    1. rhamson profile image75
      rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      lol

  50. WillStarr profile image84
    WillStarrposted 2 years ago

    In the end, there is no gun crisis in America. Almost 70% of all gun murders are confined to the inner cities with their gangs, drugs, and crimes. That's the real crisis, but politicians simply look the other way.

    Contrary to the common belief stirred up by the left, we are actually over twice as likely to be assaulted on the streets of the UK than we are in America. Contrary to leftist hyperbole, blood does not run in US streets.

    1. 84
      Education Answerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      . . .but guns sure make a great scapegoat, a great talking point to garner votes.

    2. Castlepaloma profile image22
      Castlepalomaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Occupational  and corporate crime I thought was my everyday concern and 95% of the total crime. When I open the door to outside I hear crickets

      When you open the door to the streets outside, you need a gun because in your world 70% of the crime in the streets

      1. 84
        Education Answerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        It sounds like you're very happy where you live.  Great.  You don't want guns, and that's your right.

        We're very happy where we live.  Most Americans want guns, and that's our right.

        1. WillStarr profile image84
          WillStarrposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I've often wondered why non-Americans presume to lecture Americans. Their air of superiority is based on sheer fantasy, because all of them look to America as the leader of the free world.

          1. 84
            Education Answerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            "I've often wondered why non-Americans presume to lecture Americans.

            I agree.  It's not like you see a lot of Americans lecturing people from other countries about how they should have fewer gun restrictions.

            1. WillStarr profile image84
              WillStarrposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I've encountered lots of Canadians, Australians, and Brits who love to lecture Americans, but I've never seen an American lecturing any of them on anything. We respect their right to conduct their own affairs in their own way, and are puzzled by their obvious obsession with Americans and America. But when confronted with that, they lamely claim they have the right to meddle, although they never explain why.

          2. Zelkiiro profile image84
            Zelkiiroposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Oh, you're funny.

            I'm pretty sure the folks who live in Denmark, The Netherlands, Sweden...well, just all of Scandinavia in general would like to have a word with you, especially considering they have far more personal and social freedoms than we here in the U.S. have ever had.

            1. Castlepaloma profile image22
              Castlepalomaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I once did most of my art and entertainment business in the USA. Traveled every state except Alaska.

              Then my work permits were taken away because I refused a (bigger gun) GW Bush a war sculpture.

              Your with us or your with the terrorist , he claims in broad daylight

 
working