Good Guy With a Gun

Again, not a red herring, directly related to the topic at hand. I mentioned two "off the top of my head" and have not done a proper survey to see which category outweighs the other.

Now tell us why you would want to disarm homeowners.

 

Ralebird said: ↑
Off the top of my head there was the unarmed young black woman whose car broke down and went to knock on a door for help only to get blown away. And the unarmed kid in Houston in a neighbor's yard at night and met the same fate. Neither one broke into anything but that doesn't make them any less dead.

I guess we could also look at how many of these "good guy" cases compare to the number of little kids killed and injured by unsecured weapons of the same kind of "good guys."

And let's not forget those "good guys" who have legal weapons but somehow those weapons get "sold" or "stolen" and end up in the hands of criminals. Looks like one of them is being charged in San Bernardino today. It's about time; it seems like the trail of these guns is rarely followed to prosecute those who shifted a perfectly legal gun to an illegal one.

Nobody at all? There must be someone out there on the side of law and order who cares about legal weapons going over to the dark side.

 

well the illinois courts don't care too much if this guy only gets 3 years
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...ndiana-selling-in-chicago-20151001-story.html

what a joke, people want tighter gun laws? how about hammering those who break the laws first.

 

The rifles used in San Bernardino were able to be traced to Marquez but what about all the other guns used in crimes that cannot be traced because they often don't need to be registered? The people responsible for taking them into the black market need to be prosecuted - why not require all to be registered like cars?

I don't buy the "They'll know where to come looking when they're outlawed" line of BS.

 

It's a short story, take another read and then wait for "The rest of the story." You should notice that this was not an Illinois court but a federal district court.

I certainly hope there is more to the story and a lot more sentencing to be felt by the other five defendants. I would expect his guy may have cooperated in bringing a big case against the masterminds and was given this relatively minor penalty in exchange and we know nothing of his criminal history, or lack of same.

It would be quite interesting to develop a "biography" on each of the forty guns to see if others along their lifespans should also be prosecuted.

 

Actually, I'm surprised you (and FlaJet with his "Like") would go along with such a plan, perhaps I unfairly tend to group all "pro-gunners" (for lack of a better term) with the hard core stand against such a database campaigned by the NRA, et al. Freedoms do not occur without responsibility and accountability.

I also believe that anyone having enabled a firearm getting into the possession of someone who uses it in the performance of a crime should be prosecuted as an accessory to that crime. Accountability again.

 

so in less than 3 years when this guy is recruiting a few guys to run the same system he was running and people get killed by the guns he provides its ok because he gave up 5 other guys? i don't care who he gave up, he is directly responsible for a lot of gun play in chicago, he should be doing 10 years minimum. those kind of penalties make people think twice.

 

The story doesn't make him out to be the kingpin or a recruiter, it also doesn't preclude that possibility but it does say the "buyer" was working with the feds so it looks like the guns never went anywhere but an evidence locker. I try to not jump to conclusions and consider all possibilities. Certainly whoever the real actors were, this guy or some of the others, a high price needs to be paid. When will there be consensus on this?

 

The government's sentencing memorandum says Geralds "very directly contributed to the cycle of gun violence" in Chicago.- directly from the article. thats only worth 3 years in jail and lets be honest,he probably isn't doing all 3. how are you so anti gun and yet this is ok? this guys is probably responsible for more innocent deaths than "people getting shot for knocking on doors because their car broke down"
don't answer, i believe you are trolling this thread.

 

There is more to the story in that "Geralds, who is the son of a longtime Cook County sheriff’s police officer"...

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...624_1_south-chicago-lewisbey-levaine-tanksley

http://www.justice.gov/usao-ndil/pr...ted-alleged-conspiracy-illegally-traffic-guns

 

Boy, you're really not paying attention.

Your first point is "legal-speak"; they say something like this at every sentencing.
I am not "anti-gun," I am vehemently anti UNREGULATED gun ownership.
I don't know if this is okay if I don't know more detail about the actual crime, the investigation and the prosecution. I don't jump to conclusions.

How can you be so sure of what's going on from only this short article?
Are you basing the probability of his being "responsible for more innocent deaths" on anything other than this article?

I believe you are really here just to argue, even with people who agree with you.

 

Two "off the top of your head" versus hundreds posted here.

Let's let the outliers disarm the norm.

_

 

You know better than to take random postings here as some sort of valid statistic.

Who's disarming whom?

 

You're playing an emotional card.

We ALL hate seeing innocent children gunned down for nothing more than seeking a refreshing can of pop.

I'm more empathetic to the vast majority of folks protecting their homes and loved ones threatened by real criminals gaining entry to a house with malicious intent.

_

 

More thirsty trespassers?

 

Just so we protect the childrenz, all lawful gun owners should leave a few cans of pop on the front stoop.

_