I would nail her hard though. Ask her if we could dress up as cowboys and indians so we could wear our gun belts.
Gun control
- Thread starter ukbob
- Start date
she would look great as a cowgirl.
Better as a reverse cowgirl.
this thread has taken a turn.....
Techies meet your Joe six pack hunting enthusiast
http://venturebeat.com/2013/01/13/why-the-trackingpoint-lock-and-launch-sniper-rifle-is-disgusting/
Try 3D printing this sucker, you mofos!
http://venturebeat.com/2013/01/13/why-the-trackingpoint-lock-and-launch-sniper-rifle-is-disgusting/
Try 3D printing this sucker, you mofos!
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Jury-acquits-escort-shooter-4581027.php
Jury acquits escort shooter
A Bexar County jury on Wednesday acquitted Ezekiel Gilbert of murder in the death of a 23-year-old Craigslist escort.
Gilbert, 30, embraced defense attorneys Bobby Barrera and Roy Barrera Sr. with tears in his eyes after the not guilty verdict was read aloud by state District Judge Mary Román.
Outside the courtroom, Gilbert thanked God, the Barrera family and the jury for being able to “see what wasn't the truth” and for the “second chance.”
Had he been convicted, he could have faced up to life in prison for the slaying of Lenora Ivie Frago who died about seven months after she was shot in the neck and paralyzed on Christmas Eve 2009. Gilbert admitted shooting Frago.
“I sincerely regret the loss of the life of Ms. Frago,” Gilbert said Wednesday. “I've been in a mental prison the past four years of my life. I have nightmares. If I see guns on TV where people are getting killed, I change the channel.”
The verdict came after almost 11 hours of deliberations that stretched over two days. The trial began May 17 but had a long hiatus after a juror unexpectedly had to leave town for a funeral.
During closing arguments Tuesday, Gilbert's defense team conceded the shooting did occur but said the intent wasn't to kill. Gilbert's actions were justified, they argued, because he was trying to retrieve stolen property: the $150 he paid Frago. It became theft when she refused to have sex with him or give the money back, they said.
Gilbert testified earlier Tuesday that he had found Frago's escort ad on Craigslist and believed sex was included in her $150 fee. But instead, Frago walked around his apartment and after about 20 minutes left, saying she had to give the money to her driver, he said.
That driver, the defense contended, was Frago's pimp and her partner in the theft scheme.
The Texas law that allows people to use deadly force to recover property during a nighttime theft was put in place for “law-abiding” citizens, prosecutors Matt Lovell and Jessica Schulze countered. It's not intended for someone trying to force another person into an illegal act such as prostitution, they argued.
Jury acquits escort shooter
A Bexar County jury on Wednesday acquitted Ezekiel Gilbert of murder in the death of a 23-year-old Craigslist escort.
Gilbert, 30, embraced defense attorneys Bobby Barrera and Roy Barrera Sr. with tears in his eyes after the not guilty verdict was read aloud by state District Judge Mary Román.
Outside the courtroom, Gilbert thanked God, the Barrera family and the jury for being able to “see what wasn't the truth” and for the “second chance.”
Had he been convicted, he could have faced up to life in prison for the slaying of Lenora Ivie Frago who died about seven months after she was shot in the neck and paralyzed on Christmas Eve 2009. Gilbert admitted shooting Frago.
“I sincerely regret the loss of the life of Ms. Frago,” Gilbert said Wednesday. “I've been in a mental prison the past four years of my life. I have nightmares. If I see guns on TV where people are getting killed, I change the channel.”
The verdict came after almost 11 hours of deliberations that stretched over two days. The trial began May 17 but had a long hiatus after a juror unexpectedly had to leave town for a funeral.
During closing arguments Tuesday, Gilbert's defense team conceded the shooting did occur but said the intent wasn't to kill. Gilbert's actions were justified, they argued, because he was trying to retrieve stolen property: the $150 he paid Frago. It became theft when she refused to have sex with him or give the money back, they said.
Gilbert testified earlier Tuesday that he had found Frago's escort ad on Craigslist and believed sex was included in her $150 fee. But instead, Frago walked around his apartment and after about 20 minutes left, saying she had to give the money to her driver, he said.
That driver, the defense contended, was Frago's pimp and her partner in the theft scheme.
The Texas law that allows people to use deadly force to recover property during a nighttime theft was put in place for “law-abiding” citizens, prosecutors Matt Lovell and Jessica Schulze countered. It's not intended for someone trying to force another person into an illegal act such as prostitution, they argued.
Interesting. Although the prosecution's argument is pretty weak when they decided to portray the defendant as "forcing" the victim into an illegal act. I think they could have got a conviction if they hadn't played that angle and rather went after the fella for not clarifying the terms of the arrangement he entered into, as it seems he shot her because he wasn't satisfied with what he paid for. Also, never pay them ho's first.
I wonder how much the fact that she was a prostitute affected the jury's decision also? Not that they will admit to it and it may have been subconciously also.
I wonder if the shooter took the stand during the trial or not? If so he must have presented a pretty believable version as it seems unlikely this case had any eyewitnesses, so it would come down to his version v. what ever version the prosecution could come up with.
I wonder if the shooter took the stand during the trial or not? If so he must have presented a pretty believable version as it seems unlikely this case had any eyewitnesses, so it would come down to his version v. what ever version the prosecution could come up with.
Something that struck me, and it may be just the defendant trying to buy sympathy:
“I sincerely regret the loss of the life of Ms. Frago,” Gilbert said Wednesday. “I've been in a mental prison the past four years of my life. I have nightmares. If I see guns on TV where people are getting killed, I change the channel.”
How many people ruin their own lives and fall into in a psychological hell after having shot someone when they really could've just let it go.
“I sincerely regret the loss of the life of Ms. Frago,” Gilbert said Wednesday. “I've been in a mental prison the past four years of my life. I have nightmares. If I see guns on TV where people are getting killed, I change the channel.”
How many people ruin their own lives and fall into in a psychological hell after having shot someone when they really could've just let it go.
One of the major factors with the gun problem in the US is that plenty of people don't realize (or at least seem not to realize) the potential finality of pulling the trigger. It's possible that he could sincerely regret what he did and be severely troubled by it, especially as it wasn't very much money. Imagine all of the opportunity cost that $150 has taken from not only him but everyone else involved.
Yet another shooting in the USA, this time 6 dead.
http://news.sky.com/story/1100901/santa-monica-shooting-six-dead-five-hurt
http://news.sky.com/story/1100901/santa-monica-shooting-six-dead-five-hurt
7 with the gunman, people are getting crazier must be a lot of bad drugs up there.
Put this story in this thread since in its own thread just would have become a discussion on gun control, not like we need a new thread for everyone one of these.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/20/justice/australia-student-killed-oklahoma/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Just part of the story, click on the link for entire content.
And an update, the three are being charged as adults
fecking Hell. Nothing better to do. Are you fecking kidding me?
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/20/justice/australia-student-killed-oklahoma/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Just part of the story, click on the link for entire content.
And an update, the three are being charged as adults
fecking Hell. Nothing better to do. Are you fecking kidding me?
They need to issue joggers with guns.
Stats show that joggers carrying guns reduces the crime rate, and convinces kids, that there is something better to do.
One thing this case highlights is that access to firearms is a big issue that the US needs to clear up. It is entirely possible to allow responsible people to own guns and not have shocking murders occur every month or so (waves from up North).
Once again, we're talking about guns rather than thinking about how society manages to produce children who go out to kill out of boredom.
Children do all sorts of stupid shit, which is why I put gates on my front garden and a fence around my pond.
Can society be blamed for their mental state up to the murder? I'm not sure we can definitively say that just yet. Group dynamics are interesting and can often spin off into something quite sinister.
Indeed. When my 9 year old nephew comes for sleepovers I hide the keys to the gun safe and put the wakizashi in there too.
Even away from group dynamics, an individual is capable of doing the craziest of shit. You can't legislate against lapses of reason and sanity.
So true. What happened to your nick?
Yes and no. It takes a certain level of sociopathy to be able to walk out and do that, even considering they were in a group. And it's very rare that people are born with that kind of disorder; it's generally caused by environmental factors.
Less guns = less shootings. It's ironic that the NRA, etc preach about the right to bare arms to protect one's family when it's these people that have inadvertently allowed the idiots to have access to the guns in the first place.
Props to the woman that talked an apparent gunman out of shooting up a school. Will the rightwing loons mention that she did so unarmed?
You see we believe we have the right to protect ourselves, family and our propriety which is not the case with GB, Germany and France which adding all together have more crime than in US with less people. We have a lot of crazy nuts here which with training and responsibility they wouldn't have access to guns, but the problem lies the fear in giving the politicians the power to change some laws which I do understand their fears, but I believe something could be changed and training and responsibility to be the most effective way to stop guns to end up on wrong hands.
Probably not but they should. But to be fair, left wing loons don't report when someone defends theirself or family with a gun.
It's too hard to have an honest discussion about any realistic type of gun control because neither side tells the truth. The left says they want "gun control" but in reality they really want gun elimination. They won't talk about how incidents like the Australians murder in Oklahoma wouldn't have been prevented by any type of gun control except rounding up every last gun and bullet and destroying them. Just not feasible. And people on the right think any type of restriction is a violation of rights and won't admit that some limitations would probably lower gun crime.
How many shootings occur in those countries you mention?
And are you trying to tell me that the crime rate is less in the US compared to those countries because your everyday joe has access to guns?
You guys can spin it any way you want, but it's just so simple - less guns = less killings/tragic shootings.
*Fewer guns does not mean *fewer killings. And neither does more gun legislation necessarily equate to fewer guns, especially in a country like the US where there are a ridiculous amount of smuggling routes. The problem in the US is that they do kind of have a cultural problem with shootings, in the same way Japan has quite a substantial cultural problem with suicide.
The other thing is that in the US you have quite extreme poverty, it's the biggest drug market in the world and that feeds into some of the most dangerous gangs around - and this is where the majority of 'gun crime' comes from; a ban on guns won't affect this very much at all.
The other thing is that in the US you have quite extreme poverty, it's the biggest drug market in the world and that feeds into some of the most dangerous gangs around - and this is where the majority of 'gun crime' comes from; a ban on guns won't affect this very much at all.
Fewer guns certainly does mean fewer killings. Does it mean European levels of gun violence? No, of course not. Obviously there is a certain gun culture in the US that is contributing heavily to the number of deaths, but to simply brush off the fact that the US has a whole lot of gun is stupid. Additionally, I always did find the "they would just smuggle them in through Mexico" argument rather amusing, considering the vast majority of gun smuggling over the US-Mexican border goes from the US into Mexico.
No one is saying that a ban on firearms will instantly lead to much lower gun deaths. It might, or it might not lead to any short-term decrease at all. But it's absolutely a necessary step. How else do you propose starting to chip away at the reprehensible gun culture in the country? You have to start somewhere.
I have to disagree here. A ban on firearms as a start is a bad place to begin. It's a top down solution made for soundbites and political back slapping. In a land of 250 million or so guns a ban will only succeed in limiting over-saturation repeating itself. Even with a ban you will still have law enforcement and military personel losing their guns, adding to the pool of weapons available not to mention the large number of firearms manufacturers in the US from whom weapons can be stolen piece by piece and assembled later.
Because the issue has become so polarized, the US needs to start at the bottom and work its way up to effective gun control. A blanket ban is only going to serve to develop anger and fear among people who own guns and ensure they are not on-side with improving the situation. A good place to start is limiting access to ammunition purchases and enacting safe-storage laws. These two seemingly miniscule changes would have a major effect on the number of gun deaths in the US but they require gun owners to be compliant. Draconian policy is not going to force them into compliance but results will.
How effective are bans? Well, I live in a country where posession of a firearm is illegal by law. I have a small arsenal in my closet. Ban seems effective
.agree about the bottom up approach. Think we will get stronger gun controls eventually, just because of changing demographics and urban votes out voting rural ones.
Something must work here on that aspect but is funny nobody talks about Canada when their people have the right to protect themselves like in US and they have a low gun related murder rate. (we should use the same system they have over there)
Canada also has around 11-12% of the population of the United States, and most of that is in Ontario or Quebec. Population density and distribution might be a factor in the differing gun murder rates, as it appears that most of the significant gun violence in the US takes place in and around larger urban areas.
We're just real nice up here is all.
I can't attest for the east of Canada, but I've always enjoyed driving the Alaska Highway through BC and the Yukon. And it's always nice to talk to people who understand hockey.
There's a point here though. Chances are those fellows didn't have criminal records, or weren't demonstrably crazy, and so would likely have breezed any background check. The key point is that sane people WILL do crazy things. It's part of life, it's inevitable, and we all do. Without a gun though, we'll only very, very rarely actually kill.
In spirit, I'd be pretty much in favor of most things that keep guns out of anyone's hands. This idea of background checks though seems like a palliative at best. I'm not sure it's worth spending all the political capital that would be required for it, and the resulting false "well that's all solved then" after the fact. Given how hard it is to pass anything gun control related, I'd rather the focus was on something more substantive. Perhaps chipping away at a problem politically has its place, but given that the gun lobby has demonstrated it will fight tooth and nail against any legislation, we might need to pick our battles better. If they're only going to let us fight one battle, it needs to be crucial.