Enough is enough. Public massacres and school shootings must stop.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Xcathdra

how is that different than mandatory sentencing?

The 8th amendment to the Constitution for starters.

Punishment has to be proportional to the crime committed.

As I said people who want to go down this road are only going to succeed in shredding the Constitution.

Those who give up their essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

Commit crimes? Lose your temper and threaten people? Sorry, no gun.

I'd go a step further and make it a law that if you commit a crime using a firearm, you get the death penalty.

No forgiveness.

Death penalty is actually more expensive and easier than life in prison. That's a whole other debate, but I'm all for harsh punishments for those who try and prey on other people.

Again, I love my guns.... But I was taught right and I'm responsible. If me and you ever go shooting, the only person I'd ever muzzle sweep is myself (if for whatever reason absolutely necessary).

If I handle a gun, it's unloaded unless pointed down range.

And I never point it at anything I'm not willing to destroy.

(full circle) I take the same intensity when I drive. That's why I'm aloud to.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Vroomfondel

What felony were you going to charge him with? Just make one up so he cant buy a gun? As for mental illness, that is a slippery slope.

The kid was expelled and teachers told not to let him in the building because he had made threats of bringing a gun to school.

You do realize threading with deadly weapons is a felony right?

And if you're mental illness let's you spout out you're threatening with a gun, you don't have any grasp. Much less the maturity to own a gun.

Yes and no. Its not a cut and dry felony.

If you threaten someone with a gun using words only (without actually pulling a gun on them) it will probably be treated as a misdemeanor if there are any charges filed at all. Pointing a gun at someone and threatening them could go to a higher class misdemeanor or felony.

Lots of people say things in the heat of the moment they later wish they had not said and never meant. That is why spoken words are not treated as seriously as actions. For example, getting really really angry at someone and shouting, "You're a dead man!" and pointing a gun at someone's head and shouting, "You're a dead man!" are two very different things.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

Commit crimes? Lose your temper and threaten people? Sorry, no gun.

I'd go a step further and make it a law that if you commit a crime using a firearm, you get the death penalty.

No forgiveness.

Also a violation of the US Constitution.

*shrugs*

Another topic for debate.



We can't solve today's tragedy.

But we can solve tomorrows tragedy if we start now.

If we really start looking at our kids and start teaching them better ways to cope than shooting up a school.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

Commit crimes? Lose your temper and threaten people? Sorry, no gun.

I'd go a step further and make it a law that if you commit a crime using a firearm, you get the death penalty.

No forgiveness.

Also a violation of the US Constitution.

*shrugs*

Another topic for debate.



We can't solve today's tragedy.

But we can solve tomorrows tragedy if we start now.

If we really start looking at our kids and start teaching them better ways to cope than shooting up a school.

I can agree with that

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

Commit crimes? Lose your temper and threaten people? Sorry, no gun.

I'd go a step further and make it a law that if you commit a crime using a firearm, you get the death penalty.

No forgiveness.

that would stop these"copycat" crimes right fn now

Not they wouldn't.

We have the death penalty for committing certain crimes and yet people, knowing the consequences, still commit those crimes. The death penalty is not a deterrent.

that is a fair point
the perp today didnt fight the pd today only unarmed kids
perhaps that deterrent may have stopped him

a reply to: Xcathdra

there are already escalating prison sentences for crimes committed with firearms
making the escelation more severe is not unconstitutional
that is what we have scotus for

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: odzeandennz

Well a police station ain't ever been shot up.

im pro gun, but i dont think more guns is the solution. i could be wrong.

There is a reason these dirt bags choose places where people can't defend themselves.

i just googled police station shooting and boy.. they Just don't make the news it seems, i guess 3 or less in body count isn't news worthy

originally posted by: Guyfriday
a reply to: Violater1

Want to end it? Well here's a story from today as well:


KING5:grandmother-foils-alleged-ever ett-school-shooting-plot

Published: 3:24 PM PST February 14, 2018
An 18-year-old student was arrested after a journal was found detailing plans to shoot his classmates at ACES High School in Everett.
According to the Everett Police Department, the 18-year-old’s grandmother called 911 Tuesday morning after finding the journal and believed the threats to shoot students at the school were credible.

Officers responded to the house on the 10600 block of Holly Drive and were shown excerpts of the journal and were told the grandson had a semiautomatic rifle stored in a guitar case. As officers reviewed the journal, they were alarmed by the statements and detailed plans to shoot students and use homemade explosives

That's how you can put an end to this. That's right, a school shooting that didn't happen because a family member reported in the possible crime before it happened. If people would get involved with their communities, and family members would report these issues to the authorities when it goes out of controll, then these types of crimes would be dramatically reduced if not eliminated fully. The point is, people should drop the "Stiches for Snitches" crappola, and be proactive in taking back their communities.

Hope the msm picks up on this.

Haven't heard anything as of 8:56CST

a reply to: Xcathdra

Well with that kind of argument, one would say you are wanting an arms race. Which has been going on in the USA.

The police have one caliber of weapon, that then filters down and soon the criminals have either the same caliber or one better. Then the police, up the ante and get the next best, newest weapon and it goes back and forth. And all the while, children die.

Is your right to own guns, far more important than the life of children?

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Willtell
We need a love, unity, campaign.

America is too ingrained with hate, violence, and disunity.


We may be too far gone folks.

A hug and a pat on the head would not have prevented this.
It would not have prevented Columbine.
It would not have prevented Aurora Colorado.
It would not have prevented 9/11.

Ignoring the fact evil exists in this world and always has is extremely naive and indicative of being a part of the problem and not a solution.

Who said anything about ignoring evil..
The fact of the matter is that since columbine 25 shootings similar.

That’s a little more than just evil


Trying to ingrain love more is trying to deal with evil

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Xcathdra

there are already escalating prison sentences for crimes committed with firearms
making the escelation more severe is not unconstitutional
that is what we have scotus for

Enhanced punishment for prior offenders is constitutional and has been held as such. The issue here, specifically, is taking a persons life when the person did not take anyone elses life.

Death Penalty

The Supreme Court has ruled that the death penalty is not a per se violation of the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment, but the Eighth Amendment does shape certain procedural aspects regarding when a jury may use the death penalty and how it must be carried out.

* -

Proportionality Requirement

The U.S. Supreme Court has determined that a penalty must be proportional to the crime; otherwise, the punishment violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments. In performing its proportionality analysis, the Supreme Court looks to the following three factors: a consideration of the offense's gravity and the stringency of the penalty; a consideration of how the jurisdiction punishes its other criminals; and a consideration of how other jurisdictions punish the same crime.

* -

Principle of Individualized Sentencing

To impose a death sentence, the jury must be guided by the particular circumstances of the criminal, and the court must have conducted an individualized sentencing process. In Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, (2002), the Supreme Court held that it is unconstitutional for "a sentencing judge, sitting without a jury, to find an aggravating circumstance necessary for imposition of the death penalty." An aggravating factor is any fact or circumstance that increases the culpability for a criminal act.

The Supreme Court further refined the requirement of "a finding of aggravating factors" in Brown v. Sanders, 546 U.S. 212 (2006). For cases in which an appellate court rules a sentencing factor invalid, the Court ruled that the sentence imposed becomes unconstitutional unless the jury found some other aggravating factor that encompasses the same facts and circumstances as the invalid factor.

Kansas v. Marsh, 548 U.S. 163, (2006), offered yet another clarification to the principle of individualized sentencing jurisprudence. After Marsh, states may impose the death penalty when the jury finds any aggravating and mitigating factors to be equally weighted, without violating the principle of individualized sentencing.

I post the above so people can get an understanding of the death penalty and legalities involved in its application, including the restrictions put in place by SCOTUS. Click link for a more in-depth review with case laws cited.

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
Well with that kind of argument, one would say you are wanting an arms race. Which has been going on in the USA.

Then you completely missed the point of my post.

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
The police have one caliber of weapon, that then filters down and soon the criminals have either the same caliber or one better. Then the police, up the ante and get the next best, newest weapon and it goes back and forth. And all the while, children die.

We have more than one caliber of weapon and we have more than one type of weapon. Just as criminals do. Just as the government does. Just as the military does. And no, police dont always get the best equipment / firearms available. The fact you think this tells me you need to do more research on the topic.

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
Is your right to own guns, far more important than the life of children?

Should I lose my constitutional right to own a firearm be ended because someone else broke the law? My gun, personal and at the time my duty weapon, never took another person life. Why should I be punished because of the actions of someone else?

a reply to: sdcigarpig

Is your right to own guns, far more important than the life of children?

Funny, I just saw someone make that same argument on Twitter.

Response: I am not going to go shoot up a place or murder people, and I have a constitutional right to own firearms (I do own). Hell, I'm also a liberal.

I don't wan to ban all firearms, but I also think there should be better checks in place to prevent those who shouldn't from legally obtaining them (and criminals will always find a way, just as with drugs, or with murder, etc), but that's another complicated and different argument.

originally posted by: Willtell

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Willtell
We need a love, unity, campaign.

America is too ingrained with hate, violence, and disunity.


We may be too far gone folks.

A hug and a pat on the head would not have prevented this.
It would not have prevented Columbine.
It would not have prevented Aurora Colorado.
It would not have prevented 9/11.

Ignoring the fact evil exists in this world and always has is extremely naive and indicative of being a part of the problem and not a solution.

Who said anything about ignoring evil..
The fact of the matter is that since columbine 25 shootings similar.

That’s a little more than just evil


Trying to ingrain love more is trying to deal with evil

and when love fails to prevail over evil you are going to need a game plan, preparation and something for personal defense / defense of others.

Your mindset reminds me of the war protest example.

A man sees on tv that people are downtown protesting the war so he goes down to listen to what they are staying.The speaker is preaching against the war, that it is not needed and that we are to turn the other cheek and not respond to violence with violence. After some time of listening the man walks up to the speaker and punches the guy in the face as hard as he can, sending the speaker to the ground.

The speaker gets up and starts towards the man who punched him however the man starts to repeat what the speaker said turn the other cheek and not respond with violence. After several minutes of repeating this the speaker backs down. The man then walks up to the speaker and as hard as he can hits him in the face, again. The speaker goes to the ground bloody and dazed. He gets up and starts to come after the man and the man again begins to repeat what the speaker said about turning the other cheek and not responding with violence. Predictably the speaker backs down and predictably the man hits the speaker in the face again sending him to the ground.

The moral of the story is there are certain situations where turning the other cheek does not and will not work. There are situations where non violence is not an answer as the force in question doesnt care if their target is non violent or not.

There are some times where a person must take action to end certain evil and in those instances they should not be restricted by a law that the evil doesnt follow.

a reply to: Xcathdra

who said death for not taking a life?
i would see long sentences with no parole for crimes commited with a gun but no murder and death for murder with a gun

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Xcathdra

who said death for not taking a life?
i would see long sentences with no parole for crimes commited with a gun but no murder and death for murder with a gun

The poster I originally answered - Dbcowboy.

a reply to: Xcathdra

That’s why you need a holistic approach. Not just gun control and law enforcement.

Not one thing but many things will heal this disease in the country.

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: Xcathdra

That’s why you need a holistic approach. Not just gun control and law enforcement.

Not one thing but many things will heal this disease in the country.

You keep missing the point though that some people just arent going to care about the approach you are suggesting regardless. There are some people who are intent on breaking the law and killing others for their own reasons and justify it by their own moral standards and not societies.

Again ignoring that key fact is a fatal flaw on several levels.

a reply to: Xcathdra

thanks
i think we have to find solutions outside of the standard "ban the guns" cry
i dont think the 2nd is going away