Hand-wringing about gun violence

| June 18, 2017 | 64 Comments

The Washington Post editorial board, typically, cries crocodile tears about gun control in the wake of the coverage about last week’s assault on a group of Republican baseball players in Alexandria, Virginia. Also, typically, they call for more gun control;

There are no simple or easy solutions to the complex issue of violence in the United States. There is no one piece of legislation that would prevent every madman who is intent on hurting others from getting a gun. But America is insanely unique in its refusal to address the glut of firearms, including weapons of war for which there is little legitimate use, and their easy availability to people who should not have a weapon.

Actually, there is a simple solution that would prevent a large number of people who shouldn’t have guns from getting their grubby paws on guns – prosecutors can start enforcing the laws that are already in place. This Hodgkinson fellow who shot at various Republicans, had a number of contacts with the police that should have prevented him from owning a gun, but there was nothing on the NICS system because no one followed through.

It’s not just gun laws that prosecutors ignore, Jared Loughner, the fellow who shot Gabby Giffords among others, had several run-ins with the law, but because he wasn’t prosecuted, he was able to buy a gun.

Lance Whipple, one of our phonies, has been arrested at least twice for illegally possessing a concealed weapon – he was sentenced to two days (time served) in jail and court costs the last time. I’m sure he didn’t learn his lesson. I have to think that this happens every day somewhere in this country. We’ve all seen serious charges traded away in exchange for lenient sentences. Gun charges seem to be the first on the auction block. Like David Gregory’s charges.

Bruce Pendlay, another phony who tried to frame us for attempted murder was sentenced to paying court costs ($158) and he had to write a letter of apology to the VFW. The charges of being a felon in possession of a firearm were traded away because the prosecutor didn’t want to have to prove that he was a felon in court.

Jason Scaletta was another phony who was also a felon with a firearm. He wasn’t prosecuted on the firearms charge, but fraud charges put him away for ten years.

There are plenty of gun control laws on the books, but prosecutors don’t use them, so why should we write more laws they won’t enforce? Laws that only the law-abiding will obey.

Thanks to Chief Tango for the link.

Category: Politics

Comments (64)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Kafir says:

    Weapons of war with no legimate use? Why do IRS agents carry “assault rifles” then?

  2. 2banana says:

    Cause it would be racist to enforce existing gun laws?

  3. I’ve long offered this: When every firearm of any sort and every blade larger than a simple pocket knife vanishes from the face of the earth I’ll relax. Of course, other things can be used as weapons, but I’m willing to chance it.

    Until then… “Cold Dead Hands” is my personal benchmark for being without a gun.

  4. rgr769 says:

    Yes, Jonn, proving in court that someone is a convicted felon requires some real tough “lawering” to overcome the evidentiary issues at trial. NOT. All that is required is a certified copy of the judgment of conviction of a crime that is a felony. A first year law student could probably figure out how to get that document admitted into evidence. Also, in most jurisdictions once that document is in evidence, the court could have taken judicial notice that Mr. Pendlay is a convicted felon as an irrefutable fact.

    • The Old Maj says:

      Sort of.

      It is a little more complicated than that. If the defendant refuses to admit than he is a convicted felon than the prosecutor most prove it beyond a reasonable doubt without exploiting his past record which could be prejudicial to the proceedings at hand.

      For example if the defendant was convicted previously for a felony weapons charge then presenting evidence of that might be considered prejudicial if he is currently facing felony weapons charges or some other related charge. Head hurt yet?

      There are more elements to the crime as well that all must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. For example someone operating a vehicle not their own (as criminals often do) has a gun underneath the seat. Proving that they knew the gun was there might be an element of the code. It can be pretty tough to prove what someone knew and did not know.

      • OWB says:

        Previous convictions certainly are considered for sentencing. That is the problem – if a felony crime is reduced to a misdemeanor, no matter how diligent a prosecutor may be in checking previous convictions, there is a misdemeanor recorded instead of a felony.

        What many of us are advocating is the prosecution of actual crimes instead of the least charge it appears they can get by with prosecuting. It’s rather impossible for someone who is not charged with a felony to be convicted of a felony.

        • The Old Maj says:

          Right. I’ve seen Prosecutors actually introduce charges that the defendant was not charged with to avoid prosecuting a felony. A good example in my state is possession of marijuana.

          The first time is a misdemeanor, the second time is an automatic felony. Some DA’s will drop the felony charge and instead charge them with possession of paraphernalia, even though there was no paraphernalia and they were never charged with that. This is not a lesser included charge either, it just some BS they made up.

          The defendant takes the plea, the DA chalks one up in the win column.

          In the DA’s defense they are normally way over worked and under staffed. You get the government you pay for.

        • rgr769 says:

          There are only two elements to the crime of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. (1) being a convicted felon and (2) possessing a working “firearm” as defined by the NFA. Obviously, if you had your felony reduced to a misdemeanor because of completion of probation or whatever, you are no longer a “felon” and your rights to vote and possess guns are restored. If one is a convicted felon at the time of the possession, you are not going to be able to effectively deny or refute the fact you are a felon. Possession is deniable but not hard to prove. The firearm is introduced into evidence by one of the officer’s who found it and he tells the jury he found it under the seat in the defendant’s car or wherever the felon had access to it. Also, frequently it’s not hard to prove where he got it. If prosecutors choose not to proceed with gun possession charges against a convicted felon, it is rarely because the charge is hard to prove. “You taint fount it on me,” is only an imaginary defense most of the time.

  5. AW1Ed says:

    Many folks chose to ignore Maryland’s atrocious Firearm Safety Act, banning unregistered Evil Black Rifles, and our local Sheriff refuses to enforce it. Passing laws is one thing. Enforcing them is something else entirely. I have heard the same is true in New York state.

    Andrew Jackson: “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.”

    • MSG Eric says:

      Well, in regards to the NY SAFE Act, there are places where Law Enforcement refuses, but pretty much just upstate. The Islands are a different story thanks to dumbasses like DeBlasio and Nanny Bloomberg before him.

      Most of Upstate is a whole ‘nother country. I think if they put it to a vote, Upstate NY would become a separate state and leave the Islands to their own state. Upstate votes predominately Republican, but has a much lesser population than manhattan.

  6. HMCS(FMF) ret says:

    Spot on, as always, Jonn…

  7. A Proud Infidel®™ says:

    GEE WHIZ, enforcing existing laws versus passing more, just what will politicians do for grandstanding in the meantime?

  8. AW1 Tim says:

    As I have commented elsewhere: “Cain killed his brother Abel with a rock. We don’t have a weapons problem. We have a heart problem.”

    • Graybeard says:

      And that is something the liberals cannot accept – the depravity of man.

    • MSG Eric says:

      Since more people die from hardware tools every year than firearms, this is definitely true.

      Not that the Democratic cause will admit to that since they just want guns gone……except the ones that protect them because they “deserve” that protection.

  9. Perry Gaskill says:

    Both The Washington Post, and The New York Times, tend to have parochial myopia on a regular basis. It’s as if they see things where they are as being the reality everywhere. It’s a logical fallacy of composition.

    “But those on that baseball field who were so clearly and rightly terrified by bullets whizzing by them need to know that such violence is a fact of life for many Americans, particularly minorities living in crime-ridden urban communities.”

    This is the Post’s politically correct way of saying that inner-city blacks raised in a gangsta environment should be the determinant for national gun laws. And never mind that those in the gangsta life are going to flip the finger at the new laws anyway.

    Slightly off topic is the question of to what extent The Post is now driven by owner Jeff Bezos’ agenda as both a globalist, and someone with a disdain for those trying to make a living on Main Street.

    • UpNorth says:

      You can subscribe to the WaPo for 99¢ for the first month. Bezos is desperately trying to prevent further hemorrhage of his readership. Probably too late, but here’s hoping he pours a few million into the failing effort.

  10. CDR_D says:

    Let’s see… Leftard tries to kill conservative representatives.

    Leftard media and representatives want more laws to ensure conservatives and their reps are even more vulnerable to their assassins.

    Time for Irish Democracy. Screw them.

  11. LiRight says:

    A great statistical analysis of gun violence per capita in US cities is an eye opener….much of which we already knew.

    I assumed that Chicago led the field….NOPE!

    Read here: https://www.thetrace.org/2017/01/chicago-not-most-dangerous-city-america/

    Take a look at the graphic.

  12. The Other Whitey says:

    I must confess a certain morbid curiosity as to exactly what kind of bullshit doublethink–or just plain bullshit–Joey the Retard Troll would whip out in his attempt to spin this.

    • Fyrfighter says:

      Be careful TOW, he’s like betelguese.. if you say his name 3 times, he appears, and you can’t get rid of him… That, and you could just go eat a can of beans, wash it down with a couple beers, and wait an hour… the result would i’m sure be very similar to what joey would spew…

    • UpNorth says:

      Never, ever use “Joey the Retard Troll” and whip out in the same sentence. It’s like a dare to him.

    • Fyrfighter says:

      Hmm, i’m starting to think someone called the nice men in white coats on Joey.. good for him (and us)

  13. Ex-PH2 says:

    Why write more laws that won’t be enforced?

    Because legislators have to have some way to excuse their existence.

  14. OWB says:

    It gets so tiresome hearing them singing the same song. It’s way past time for them to find some new material.

    Their answer to everything is that they are free to do whatever they want, say whatever they feel like saying, dress like utter fools in public, and all sorts of things and any of us who object to having them clutter up our air space is that we should just look in a different direction. OK, fine. No one is demanding that they own firearms, so why can’t they apply the same standard to themselves – if they don’t want one, don’t buy one. If they don’t want to see one, stay away from firing ranges.

    Seriously – it really is just that easy.

  15. IDC SARC says:

    This ongoing recycling of mindless efforts to limit the rights of the law abiding is why I get emails from the NRA-ILA.

    They keep up on the efforts state by state and tell you who is sponsoring what, when and where you can make your voice heard.

    You don’t even have to be an NRA member to get on the email list. It’s really a good resource if you care about staying up on the legislation.

    • Thunderstixx says:

      The NRA was founded originally right after the Civil War to fight back against the demonrat carpetbaggers that passed laws all over the Confederate Southern States that made it illegal for Negroes to own firearms.
      It took some doing, but they fought a great battle back then to ensure that they had the same God Given Right to self defense against any and all comers as whites had.
      For $25.00 a year the NRA is the best, most effective and most vocal political institution that anyone can join.
      The rewards of belonging to such an organization are huge as their early endorsement of President Trump helped him win in the early primaries and no doubt did yeoman’s work getting him in that office against a huge extremely well funded #libidiot political criminal slut candidate…

  16. 11b-mailclerk says:

    Always remember that many of the strident “disarmnament” types have a very different set of premises at the foundation of thwir worldview.

    People are perfectable, or at least greatly improvable, by the right set of
    Progressive laws.

    No one is inhernetly sinful or evil., or has that as a nature. We all act as our environment made us, dancing to the tune played by the opressive or poverty we may have endured.

    “Criminals” are best avoided by living in “nice” neigborhoods.

    “Those” downtrodden folks need a benefactor to raise them up, which will make them functional.

    People are -angry-. They lose their control sand rampage. This is largely, but not exclusively, justified against opression.

    Stir that all together and -you-, the common gun owner, are the threat. They dont live near “those” people, avoid their neigborhoods, and are in solidarity with them and will help them try to keep up.

    Thus -your- rage will cause -you- to snap and lash out at the folks who are good and decent. Thus the rage they project requires disarming -you-.

    Oh, they want ~”those” people disarmed too. Cant blame them for raging against the machine, right? But ban the weapon and the man must become peaceful.

    No, it isnt based on facts and reason. No, they wont debate it. They feel -bad- when they doubt, and you keep brining doubt. Virtue must be signaled.

    And look what happens to cities run that way.

  17. Veritas Omnia Vincit says:

    Well here in the Baystate (or the PRoM as some of us call it) the first charge that prosecutors seem the most willing to drop is illegal possession of a firearm. To secure a plea deal most of the shitbags here will agree to assault, or simple robbery, or any of a host of other charges to get the gun charge dropped…it makes for speedy justice, or some watered down variant of justice, I suppose but little else…

  18. Jeff LPH 3, 63-66 says:

    Automobiles and hammers are responsible for more deaths than fire arms so how come the liberals and LC crowd (leftist/liberal correctness) are not demanding the banning of vehicles and hammers. Interesting is when a homicide bombers kills multiple people, they blame the bomber and not the explosives but when some shit bird uses a fire arm to kill people, they blame the fire arm but not the shooter. All I can say is gee willikers

  19. Graybeard says:

    After this weekend I realized that I need more gun-control in my life.

    My groups are way too big. Better start the push-ups and curls and practice trigger control.

  20. Joe says:

    “Overall, nearly 1,300 children in the U.S. die in shootings each year and another 5,790 survive gunshot wounds — from handguns, rifles and shotguns — according to the study published today in the journal Pediatrics.” (CBS News) Apparently you couldn’t care less about those 7,000 American kids a year, they don’t even figure into you calculations.

    • IDC SARC says:

      Since you offer no qualification in your figures and thus, no usable perspective in figures presented for the sake of an emotional response, let me say, nope, I don’t give a fukk.

        • IDC SARC says:

          “National data on the circumstances surrounding child firearm deaths are not available.”

          well isn’t that special

        • Graybeard says:

          And how many of those 1,300 / 5,790 are gang/drug related.
          Since the “children” category includes 17-year-olds and younger, probably quite a few.
          But since the “circumstances” are not recorded, it becomes a “he said/she said” argument.

          JoeBlow don’t care about circumstances – it’s the Evil Gunzzzz and the Demonic NRA who are to blame. Not government policies that reward having children out of wedlock and push fathers out of children’s lives, or the fact that black-on-black murder is rampant in places like Chicago – Democrat run cesspools.

          Joe – it is you and folks like you who don’t care about the children, you ghouls who delight in the destruction of life as long as it gives you a chance to push your agenda.

          • Graybeard says:

            “Of the nearly 1,300 children who die each year in the U.S. from a firearm-related injury (1.8 per 100,000 children), 53 percent were homicides, 38 percent were suicides, 6 percent were unintentional firearm deaths, and 3 percent were due to other intent. Boys, older children, and minorities are disproportionately affected. Boys account for 82 percent of all child firearm deaths, and black children have the highest rates of firearm mortality overall due to much higher firearm homicide rates (4.1 per 100,000)—10 times higher than the rate for non-Hispanic white and Asian/Pacific Islander children.

            “An even grimmer picture appears if we extend the age range through the teenage years to age 19, because firearm injury rates rise steeply in late adolescence…”

            To quote from the page ID SARC linked to.

          • rgr769 says:

            Also, if you look at the other statistics of “children” killed with firearms used by the left/anti-gunners for dozens of years you will see they frequently include 20 year old gang-bangers, including those lawfully shot by LEO’s and homeowners/victims of their depredations.

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      Joey, you’re an off-key one-note sound from a broken instrument. Dogs barking at the moon make more sense than you do.

      Just remember that no one is forcing you to use or own a weapon of any kind, but smoking dope in public is still illegal because public smoking is illegal. And you reek of dope like an opium parlor anyway.

    • Fyrfighter says:

      Yeah douche, how many of those are gang members, and the “study” they use includes people up to 21.. not considered children by most people.. but like all good leftists, never let facts get in the way of the narrative… and as before, it seems i need to say it again… PLEASE< STOP SNIFFING GLUE!!!

    • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

      A shitload more children die in traffic accidents but we don’t hear blithering idiots like you cry for more Car Control!

    • 11B-Mailclerk says:

      “19” is a teenager, and teenagers are children.

      A 14 year old gangbanger offing another 14 year old gangbanger over drug turf is counted. When the survivor loses a gunfight with a cop, he gets counted again.

      All of this, Joe, for you to convince us to return to Jim Crow, where folks like you get to decide who has the rare and limited privilege to be free from predation. Almost as if -that- is what you fear, being deterred as a predator. ‘Scuse me, as a benevolent benefactor, aka “Massa”.


      • 11B-Mailclerk says:

        Accidental gun deaths are at historical lows, despite record levels of ownership and of -new- owners.

        Odd, that….

        -Enforcement- of -existing- gun laws is -lowest- in major metro areas run by …. wait for it … democrats. Thes same folks clamor for more gun laws not to enforce.

        Wait. That strategy sounds really stupid. Must have been from the victim disarmnament / CTRL+Left.

        Because, you putrified pustule of pissant-ery, you don’t give a -damn- about “those” folks. You want the hammer to hold over everyone who -opposes- you, and -those- folks -will- get enforced. You wouldn’t -dare- crack down on your crook-clients. One, they might not vote for your side anymore,and two, you would lose the whole incentive for endless increased control.

        Besides, if your position had any merit, you wouldn’t have to use those repeatedly debunked bullshit numbers.

  21. Silentium Est Aureum says:

    About the only person off the top of my head I can think of who got any sort of time for illegal possession of a firearm was Kokesh and his little stunt in DC, and I’m not even sure about that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *