Hunter lost a handgun when his sister-in-law/lover threw it away in the household trash. He also lied about his drug history to get the gun in the first place. But gun laws are for the little people I guess.
Except bystanders were shot. I'm not sure that is necessarily a good outcome considering you have no basis on determining whether the bystanders would've been shot if it had been a trained LEO or not or whether the civilian shooter had acted differently. Yes but pointing out that several mass shootings were not included in either study so 10 year old studies might not reflect what is the current situation. As a critcism of Lankford that is relevant. As an overall understanding of the current state of mass shootings not so much. Yes I brought up that Lankford was biased to English speaking countries I also brought up that the methodology uses a different system than what Lankford so it is isn't an apples to apples comparison. Regarding Norway my guess is that because they included number of casualties the Utoya Island massacre shooting might've skewed that figure.
well, that outcome is certainly better than being a bystander killed by a trained LEO. Not saying either is a good outcome, but when stupid criminals decide to do stupid things, bystanders are at risk any way you slice it Parents of girl shot dead in dressing room by Los Angeles police call for justice https://www.reuters.com/world/us/pa...y-los-angeles-police-call-justice-2021-12-28/
Except we don't know how an LEO would perform in that situation. That is why I asked specifically would an LEO do better, worse, about the same? Do you know that? And as pointed out in the original discussion an armed civilian shot bystanders. So is that a good outcome? This is the problem with calling an outcome "good" without considering the alternatives.
Yes better than dead but there are a lot of outcomes that wouldn't lead to death. To get the point. The argument presented by yourself and Stupidmoniker is essentially considering bystanders as "collateral damage" or necessary casualties. You said it plainly. "but when stupid criminals decide to do stupid things, bystanders are at risk any way you slice it". One of the problems regarding the use of firearms by both civilians and LEO is the inabiltiy to consider other avenues that might reduce casualties.
Hunter Biden lied on a background check and then the gun he got after lying on a background check ended up in the trash near a school. The very gun control that you are calling for, he broke. There were no law enforcement officers there. It is irrelevant what would have happened if there had been a trained law enforcement officer there, because that is not an alternative that was on the table. Unless there is a proposal to have a police officer stationed outside of every building, the options being discussed were that the guy have access to guns or not. A better alternative would have been for Superman to fly in and grab the robber before he finished robbing the guy in the first place. All studies have to end at some point in time. A study that went through today would not include a mass shooting tomorrow. Unless there was some major change in gun laws somewhere that would impact the study between 2012 and now, there should not be The different system is that he didn't exclude multiple shooter scenarios. There is a reason that they got different results, and the reason is Lott didn't exclude foreign language press (something that might be important in comparing the US to foreign countries) and didn't exclude incidents with more than one shooter (like San Bernardino and Columbine, or should those not count as mass shootings?). It doesn't skew the figure, it is part of the figure. Excluding it is like the people that say white supremacist terrorism has killed the most Americans and exclude 9/11.
Why is Biden calling for more gun laws if his family doesn't adhere to existing ones, and he wont prosecute them?
So you are saying if someone in your family breaks the laws you should loosen them up? Are you serious? Biden isn't going to just throw his hands in the air because of what one of his kids did. If you can get away with lying on a background check then we obviously need a better way to ensure guns aren't just given out based on someone's word. Biden isn't in the business of prosecuting people who break the law.
So as a defense attorney are you saying Biden should make laws based on what one of his kids did? Shouldn't he do what he feels is needed in this country? If your kid broke a law would that stop you from doing what you felt was right or what was needed? I mean, you might defend criminals for a living but I truly believe Biden sees a need to make stricter gun laws in our country. If people can lie on background checks we obviously need better ways of doing things before handing out guns.
As a prosecutor, I am saying that he has the evidence that someone committed a federal crime and is in control of the justice department. Maybe before complaining about what gun laws don't exist, they should go after the guy that has already been proven to have broken the laws that do.
You think Biden should start prosecuting criminals now? You think him prosecuting his son will solve the gun loopholes, the lack of proper training to those buying guns, and the easy access to weapons designated to kill multiple people quickly? It certainly won't save women and children from having a far greater chance of dying with a gun in their house. It wouldn't have saved the hundreds killed in mass shootings this year. Honestly, if you think Biden should start prosecuting criminals maybe you should have suggested that back when Trump incited a coup and insurrection, and sat back and watched cops beaten by force. Funny how you didn't say anything then. Then again, you have a different viewpoint on things than I do. I couldn't defend cold blooded killers and criminals for a living. You have worked as a defense attorney too right? I'm sure you knew some of them were evil and guilty as hell. Also....do you really think Trump JR told the truth when answering this question? In order to purchase a firearm from an FFL, a buyer must fill out a Form 4473. The form asks, “Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, mar1juana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?” Hunter answered “no” to this question. My guess is that Junior lied too, and is in possession of firearms. After all, he took his 12 year old son to make a custom AR-15 recently in Texas and bragged about it.
Conversing with an old friend on FB who used to sell guns and he says that we need to address the alcohol and tobacco problem first and those products should be banned.
People are prosecuted for gun crimes every day. I have several ongoing firearm prosecutions. They are largely based around taking guns out of the hands of dangerous people, predominantly felons and gang members. Adding his son to the list would be a high-profile example of the "common sense gun control" that is already in place being put into action for the American people to see. Is there a reason you think it shouldn't happen? I did in fact say that the rioters should be charged for each of the crimes they committed, including beating police officers. You must have missed it. I have no idea if Donald Trump, Jr. has ever owned a gun or filled out a background check or provably used drugs unlawfully. I know that Hunter Biden has done all three, because I have seen the background check form, he has admitted the unlawful drug use, and the gun was found in the trash near a school. If such evidence turns up against Donald Trump, Jr. (or President Trump, Eric, Ivanka, Tucker Carlson, or anyone else you care to name) arrest them, too. When you have enough evidence to prove that your suspect has committed a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, prosecution is warranted. I don't know why you would suspect I think otherwise.
According to "America's Most Trusted News Source", Texas has now instituted a mandatory 24 hour waiting period on police officers engaging an active shooter.
Because if you don't have a gun to defend yourself in those situations, you're weak. More than likely gay.
Again. There need to be stricter gun laws in this country. It's just the smart thing to do. We need better and much stricter background checks, vetting, mandatory training, licensing, and insurance. In an ideal world we'd get rid of handguns and assault rifles. I honestly don't know much about the Hunter Biden case. I do know that far too many women and children die at home by either domestic violence assault by a gun or because that gun wasn't stored properly. You can't weed out stupid, negligent, improperly trained people, or any those with with anger issues if they have a clean record. That's why things need to change in a big way. Hold everyone accountable. Insurance and licenses should be an annual requirement, with a practical exam and training requirement prior to issuing either.
