- Apr 19, 2012
- 32,709
- 6,391
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
What would?This would happen more if all guns were registered and there was a nationwide police data base of guns.
They ARE convicted of manslaughter involuntary because that is what it is. My point was that the poster said it should be treated as murder, yet it is NOT murder the law.What is your point? Convicting folks of manslaughter would be a major step forward.
Ok thanks for that. So where do you think it's all gone wrong?There ARE controls what is debated is what kinds of controls there should be, but they do exist For example, it is a federal crime for convicted felons (unless they have been pardoned) to even own guns or even amo within their OWN homes. Some states even say that NO ONE can have guns in the home if a convicted felon lived there. There are laws that prevent the mentally ill ( assuming that their illness is documented) from having guns, same with drug addicts and many crimes of violence ( even if they do not rise to the level of a felony). There ARE controls.
This supports the idea that if a person doesn't have a gun to do his killing, he will find something else to do it with.
AND....it didn't involve machine guns, bump stocks, easy access to guns, certain types of ammo, high capacity magazines, or even a single shot being fired. Again, if someone wants to kill, they'll do it with whatever means they can find to do it with.
Well for one thing the bad people ( that would get a firearm any now use guns where they used to use fists. In other words, they will shoot their enemy gang member whether than have a man to man fight. A lot of it have to do with poverty and drugs; sometimes it is like do unto others BEFORE they do unto you in those rougher nieborhoods. People have to learn that violence is not the way to deal with things. It starts at home; violence for the most part is a learned behavior people do not know where their children are and allow the streets to raise them.Ok thanks for that. So where do you think it's all gone wrong?
There are federal checks and balances different states may or may not add more to it.And again, guns are far more efficient and lethal in that regard. Yet you people prefer to exist in an environment where there are hardly any checks on their use....
fair enoughThey ARE convicted of manslaughter involuntary because that is what it is. My point was that the poster said it should be treated as murder, yet it is NOT murder the law.
Yes, they should but poor judgement does NOT equal that is what murder takes not should have known better not poor judgement. Heck did you know that sometimes if someone honestly DOES what appears to be murder drunk or high many times they can get a reduced sentence (if they were not committing ANOTHER felony at the time of the murder) because they lacked the ability to have the required intent for first degree murder? That is WAY different than a parent who granted uses very poor judgement in allowing a toddler to access a firearm.
Two points the VAST majority of jurtiditions define murder as an intent crime whereas involuntary man slaughter is not that is the point of the charge is cover homicides that were not intendtional but resulted from very poor judgement. Secondly, even if a DA was crazy enough to try to charge the person with murder most DA'S know that that charge would be darn near IMPOSSIBLE to make stick if it were taken to trial and then they may end up getting NO conviction at all. As it relates to bank robbery that is called the felony murder rule the underlying charge MUST be a felony and the person must die as a reasonable result of that felony. Leaving a gun on a table is neither a felony, nor is death a foreseeable result JUST by that action ( after all a gun is not going to shoot itself).You know murder is a legal term, that can be applied to whatever crime the state deems reasonable. Get-away drivers in bank heists are charged with murder if the heist results in people being killed. I'm darn sure that it's reasonable to charge negligent gun owners with murder if children use those guns in an "accidental" death of themselves or another.
No, no I don't. Again, perhaps my education and career being largely data and statistics driven make me prone to relying on data and statistics to support my position.
Serious question here: do you honestly think the world's largest military complete with Tomahawk Cruise missles and nuclear weapons galore would give one whit about your 12 gauge shotgun?
You mean no controls obviously. If you had control you wouldn't have the insane statistics that the USA does. And you just told me before that controls shouldn't be in place. Are you saying now that the USA does try and control it? Your being very self contradictory which of course it's exactly what the gun lobby is
I asked another person on this forum if they actually thought they could kill another human being. To see their bullets blow up a human head right in front of them. The reason I ask is because I've seen plenty of interviews with people after war who, even when they were actively being shot at by enemy soldiers, seemed to be horrified when they finally killed an enemy soldier. It seems like something that is not very easy to do. And when you take someone who is just a regular Joe or Jane Sixpack, how likely is it that they will 1) be able to think quickly enough to eliminate the threat 2) accurately eliminate a real threat (and not accidentally shoot someone who isn't a threat) 3) be able to deal with the anguish of having done that.
That's why I think it's a fantasy for 99.9% of Americans who think they will be able to defend themselves with a gun.
Two points the VAST majority of jurtiditions define murder as an intent crime whereas involuntary man slaughter is not that is the point of the charge is cover homicides that were not intendtional but resulted from very poor judgement. Secondly, even if a DA was crazy enough to try to charge the person with murder most DA'S know that that charge would be darn near IMPOSSIBLE to make stick if it were taken to trial and then they may end up getting NO conviction at all. As it relates to bank robbery that is called the felony murder rule the underlying charge MUST be a felony and the person must die as a reasonable result of that felony. Leaving a gun on a table is neither a felony, nor is death a foreseeable result JUST by that action ( after all a gun is not going to shoot itself).
Then you won't have children due to how the numbers tell you that it would add to overpopulation?
I don't have children because my wife and I don't want children.
If gang members can shoot someone as an initiation requirement, or take out rival gang members because they wore the wrong colors, or if a man can shoot another guy for sleeping with his wife, or if a cop or soldier can shoot someone because they feared for their life, then why would you doubt that people in general would completely freeze up and not be able to shoot someone who they felt was about to kill them or their loved ones?
Did numbers have anything to do with it?
Because I don't think most people are capable of that. Yes there are people who can kill others. I just question the idea that more Americans with guns will mean there is more "safety". Clearly the numbers do NOT show that.
It just seems that it is really hard to find a legitimate source of information that America really IS a nation full of Bruce Willis in Die Hard action heroes.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?