• DPMC Moderators: thegreenhand | tryptakid
  • Drug Policy & Media Coverage Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Drug Busts Megathread Video Megathread

Felony murder: why a teenager who didn't kill anyone faces 55 years in jail

Those guns were legally owned, which proves that "hunting" weapons of Cumbria shootings
were able to kill just as many people as the assault weapons of the Aurora Co shootings.
More injuries in aurora, but similar fatalities.
 
^ Regardless, it still makes you look pretty stupid to post up the incident that was a major catalyst for gun control in the UK as a reason why gun control isn't working, doubly so when you consider that 15 children aged between 5 and 6 were murdered in that incident through the use of legally owned firearms.

As previously stated, nobody claimed that gun control laws stop ALL gun violence, do you honestly believe the increased gun violence in the US compared to Australia or the UK has nothing at all to do with their laws?

Did you bother to watch that John Oliver segment on gun laws?
 
stop-we-cant-take-these-guns-in-there.jpg
 
You're reading comprehension and ability to debate are hilariously poor, I already explained how gun control limits the black market for guns, you want to cite individual shootings as reasons that gun control doesn't work while ignoring the bigger picture that these shootings are happening much less in places where guns are restricted.

I asked before and will ask again, do you honestly believe the increased gun violence in the US compared to Australia or the UK has nothing at all to do with their gun laws?

If not, how do you explain the difference?

For someone who made such a big deal out of NSA not answering one of your questions earlier in the thread you sure are doing a good job of not answering a number of mine...
 
drug_mentor said:
You're reading comprehension and ability to debate are hilariously poor, I already explained how gun control limits the black market for guns, you want to cite individual shootings as reasons that gun control doesn't work while ignoring the bigger picture that these shootings are happening much less in places where guns are restricted.

I asked before and will ask again, do you honestly believe the increased gun violence in the US compared to Australia or the UK has nothing at all to do with their laws?
Click to expand...

I believe that violence will happen regardless of guns or not. People who want to hurt others are going to do anyway
 
i demonstrated that by citing Chinese mass stabbings, many of them. Japan has quite a few as well.
And Japan has lower crime rates and STILL has them
 
You didn't answer my question, you are dodging it, do you believe the increased gun violence in the US in relation to other Countries has nothing to do with the increased availability of guns?

If not, how do you explain the difference?

If you can't even give a straight answer to these questions how do you expect anybody to take you seriously.
 
You never answered my question either
How does carrying a gun make a women no less prone to sexual violence?
You said 95% of the time it doesn't matter if a woman has a gun, she's still gonna get raped.
why did you say that?
That's a real percentage you said too
 
Mate I gave you a pretty fair explanation why I believed that, now your just getting ridiculous. I also gave statistics that show women are no less likely to be raped in Countries where they have access to guns, probably at least in part because potential rapists also have access to firearms as well.

I am not going to continue to debate around hypothetical or anecdotal situations as though they matter. You need to come up with actual evidence, not focus on very specific scenarios and act as though they have broad application to a discussion.

It is telling that you are getting this defensive and refusing to answer such basic questions that are pretty central to the whole gun control debate.

If you can't even articulate why the liberal gun laws in the United States are not a factor in the high levels of gun violence that Country has, despite the fact that when other Countries implemented strict gun control laws they saw a dramatic reduction in gun crime, then you don't have a leg to stand on in this discussion, it really is that simple.

I said quite a number of posts ago that I was no longer going to participate in this discussion, consider this my final post on the topic.
 
Last edited:
Haha... This shit is hilarious. Basically the one gun thread in the CEP all over again. I think if I wake up to a bunch of people in my house going through my things I will just wait to see if they are armed themselves and shoot me before I decide to fire on them. And if they're teenagers I will just tell them they should leave and that I will notify their parents so that they can ground them and take away their Playstations and video games.
 
It's nice to see big discussions on bl but this seems more like an off topic argument now. I personally don't think he should get a murder charge. Every one was on board for the B&E how is it his fault some one got shot they all knew the risks??
Give him the burglary charge the government still makes their money (which is what matters to the US) being shot and having a friend die is rough enough 55 years is just retarded.
 
drug_mentor said:
Mate I gave you a pretty fair explanation why I believed that, now your just getting ridiculous. I also gave statistics that show women are no less likely to be raped in Countries where they have access to guns, probably at least in part because potential rapists also have access to firearms as well.

I am not going to continue to debate around hypothetical or anecdotal situations as though they matter. You need to come up with actual evidence, not focus on very specific scenarios and act as though they have broad application to a discussion.

It is telling that you are getting this defensive and refusing to answer such basic questions that are pretty central to the whole gun control debate.

If you can't even articulate why the liberal gun laws in the United States are not a factor in the high levels of gun violence that Country has, despite the fact that when other Countries implemented strict gun control laws they saw a dramatic reduction in gun crime, then you don't have a leg to stand on in this discussion, it really is that simple.

I said quite a number of posts ago that I was no longer going to participate in this discussion, consider this my final post on the topic.
Click to expand...
dont you know by now
there's no use in arguing with conservatives
for what its worth
i'mma get me a handgun once i'm off paper.
but idiot republicans make me sick
i think Iso falls into the republican/libertarian category
 
The notions that guns are "freely" available or "not controlled" in America are ignorant, and I would suggest researching gun laws before making such claims. Many states and cities are restricted to the extent of not allowing concealed carry by law abiding citizens, and crime rates are higher in those areas. General examples are NYC, Massachusetts, Chicago, DC, Cali, etc. You need a special license to carry in just about every state which "allows" it.

What would make an impact on criminal access is strict penalties for having a gun stolen, and even stricter requirements to report if a gun is stolen. As it stands, you cannot legally purchase a gun as a convicted felon - along with a host of other restrictions including citizenship and mental health background. The presence of gun stores, pawn shops, et al. does provide a wide spread means of attainment for criminals who bypass required security measures. In a similar spirit to this situation, it would make sense for parents of children who gain access to weapons to be charged for any crimes committed. Criminal negligence, pure and simple.

Calling for gun bans because a person killed an intruder during a home invasion is a stretch. Nobody here knows the circumstances or if the occupant was threatened. People absolutely are raped and killed during many home invasions, and it's not the fault of guns. Claiming that, "bro probably just wanted your TV" isn't the greatest reason or excuse to call for disarming law abiding citizens. On the flip side, you'd usually hear about robbers suing over being shot, or families of the criminal suing over wrongful death. I guess some people will think that makes all the sense in the world.
 
Don't have the time to see if someone had said this, but you all keep saying it was a home invasion. It was not it was a burglary. Home invasion is at night time during certain hours when there is reason to believe the home owner would be home aka at night asleep. Also like the article said the state nuanced the wording and because of this I see absolutely no legal reason for him to remain in prison on the felony murder because it specifically States if the person committing the crime murders another. It is that simple whether anyone else wants to agree or not... Indiana don't agree? Well too bad change your law but it still won't apply to him because it would be retroactive
 
fatstep said:
Don't have the time to see if someone had said this, but you all keep saying it was a home invasion. It was not it was a burglary. Home invasion is at night time during certain hours when there is reason to believe the home owner would be home aka at night asleep. Also like the article said the state nuanced the wording and because of this I see absolutely no legal reason for him to remain in prison on the felony murder because it specifically States if the person committing the crime murders another. It is that simple whether anyone else wants to agree or not... Indiana don't agree? Well too bad change your law but it still won't apply to him because it would be retroactive
Click to expand...
I didn't read the entire thread and all the replies; but I agree with what you posted.
 
fatstep said:
Don't have the time to see if someone had said this, but you all keep saying it was a home invasion. It was not it was a burglary. Home invasion is at night time during certain hours when there is reason to believe the home owner would be home aka at night asleep. Also like the article said the state nuanced the wording and because of this I see absolutely no legal reason for him to remain in prison on the felony murder because it specifically States if the person committing the crime murders another. It is that simple whether anyone else wants to agree or not... Indiana don't agree? Well too bad change your law but it still won't apply to him because it would be retroactive
Click to expand...
I think it is considered burglary. They went with the intent to steal from this man's home (as well as grabbed his wallet) they also thought he was not home because they knocked on the door to no reply. Stupid shit really but I still agree murder should not be the case.
 
the only winner is the people who own the prison.....Merica! what a dump
 
Next they will say that is close enough to a life sentence and lets execute him to save money. Good ole Americans
 
Its not necessarily a matter of gun laws, as it could be more a cultural thing.

http://world.time.com/2012/12/20/the-swiss-difference-a-gun-culture-that-works/

Guess the attitude in respect to self defense is also a different. In Europe the state "defends" its citizens, its the sole privilege of the state to use force -as European states build on feudal structures. There where even in the German history debates whether citizens should have any right to self defense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top