Beto O'Rourke interrupts Texas Gov. Abbott's press conference: "You're offering us nothing"

He didn't have lawful access to a gun, he is a convicted felon and as such cannot lawfully possess a firearm. Do you have any sense of how many things are possessed by felons in America that is unlawful for them to possess? Our streets are flooded with fentanyl, in fact they are flooded with people for whom it is a felony for them to be even be in the country, and as would be expected, many of them are the felons who committed the felonies that fill our streets with drugs. We have felony sex trafficking everywhere. We have gangs, operating openly in our cities, filled with armed felons. And guess what doesn't tend to get charged when the police pick up an armed convicted felon, who is promptly turned back out onto the streets, often without even posting bail? The gun crimes. We have both no shortage of laws, and no shortage of armed felons continuously breaking those laws. And when criminal gangs are operating openly in our cities, I guarantee you a lot folks who are supposed to be in the business of suppressing this are in the business of getting their palms richly greased.

Fortunately in this case, when the felon attempted to use unlawful deadly force, it was promptly met with sufficient lawful force that stopped the threat before innocent blood was shed.

Do you object to Stop and Frisk, which police have used to effectively disarm felons who are in illegal possession of a gun?

Stop and Frisked - It only stopped working when Stop and Frisk was stopped.

https://www.nytimes.com › roomfordebate › 2012 › 07 › 17 › does-stop-and-frisk-reduce-crime › stop-and-frisk-has-lowered-crime-in-other-cities
Stop and Frisk Has Lowered Crime in Other Cities
"As a result of active crime-prevention techniques like stop and frisk, they are being arrested and imprisoned at a drastically lower rate. The number of inmates from New York City in state prisons..."

Interestingly, it not only reduced the number of felons that were illegally armed, but it drastically lowered arrest and incarceration rates! That's a proven win/win/win.

 

No, I don't object to Stop and Frisk if it works and is photographed so that Police cannot plant evidence. If if finds drugs and not guns that should be dismissed if that's not what police were looking for.

 

Your lack of knowledge is not an excuse.

https://www.11alive.com/article/new...oting/85-3c372e87-f11a-47a7-a765-9ffec0481177

 

Why fantasize about something that is never going to happen? Why not have special dreams about no criminals being alive?

 

Heavily armed populations have been disarmed before and they will continue to be disarmed in the future. The people will do it themselves.

 

AHAHAHAHAHA, when did that ever happen? That's really funny. Just tell us when that happened, WHO did it, and what the outcome was. If you'd like a cheat sheet think Germany, and get back to us on how that went. Seriously, if you're gonna have a fetish about something why not be a benevolent one like no more criminals. In your fetish there are no guns, but for some reason you're fine with criminals still poking around!

 

Were Germany, Britain, Australia and Japan heavily armed after WWII? Are they still heavily armed now?

 

There weren't heavily armed before, were you not aware of that? If you wanna live like the UK or Germany or Austrailia be my guest but those places have subjects instead of citizens. You'd be happy there you don't have to do any of your own thinking and the gov provides for you. Until they decide not to.

 

There are over 50 countries with higher homicide rates than the US and all of them prohibit private gun ownership.

Why don't total gun bans work?


- "Intentional homicides (per 100,000 people) - Country Ranking"
https://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/VC.IHR.PSRC.P5/rankings

 

How many of them were done with firearms?

Homicide rates have all sorts of causes, the easy availability of guns is just one

What do you mean by "work"? The elimination of guns won't end crime entirely no

 

Your characterization of the UK or Australia as oppressive hellholes because they don't have lots of guns is beyond ridiculous

I chose the UK as one because at he end of WWII they were definitely among the most heavily armed populations on Earth, but they aren't today. They see other things in life as more important than having arsenals in their basements ( Frex, they have sex with women instead of masturbating among their firearms.)

 

More "America Can't".

 

Many of those listed also have poor medical treatment after an incident occurs so it is a tad disingenuous to act like that is a measure of societal violence.

In a comparison of “modern” first world nations, where would you guess the United States is?

 

I have never seen so many “patriots” screaming how bad this country sucks before. We seem to be unable to accomplish anything so regression is the only option.

 

They're oppressive dungholes because there are NO CITIZENS, only subjects. Subjects who get arrested for defending themselves in their OWN HOMES. You can be arrested for defending yourself with a knife, a club, pepper spray...
You can be arrested for facebook posts.
No, there were never the amount of guns there prior to ww2 as there were here. You wanna live somewhere the gov arrests you for defendin yourself I suggest you start packing. We're not taking that here.

 

With over 400 million legal guns here in the US and a very low % of those causing a problem, I'm not the least bit concerned.

I'm more worried about actual crime https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/tables/table-43

 

None of those are first world countries.

All of them have serious issues with war, drugs, desperate levels of poverty, bad government, or various other serious problems.

How about comparing America to other first world nations?

 

You and Trump may dance on the graves of 4th graders.

The very thought of ignoring that is monumentally disgusting to me.

Who have we become when we CHOOSE not to care?

 

The scum bag interrupted the governor addressing people who just lost their children to stand on a soap box.

He's pretty low in this regard. If he wants to have that discussion and be laughed at there is a time and a place and that wasn't it.

 

In Australia self defense IS a legal defense to charges of causing injury or death.

 

and Beto is what comes out of an ass.

 

I doubt that move gained any ground.

However, I disagree with your idea that there is a time or place.

Republicans including Abbott have worked to assure that there is no time or place.

 

I'm not sure why you'd think I was a trump fan, but go nuts. No one is dancing on any graves. Let's not pretend that the self-amusement that's going around about a particular type of weapon, should they suddenly disappear, will ever stop people from shooting in schools, churches, markets, ect.

The thought of taking legally owned property from the 99.999% of lawful people who use their property legally is more disgusting than anything I can think of. Might as well line up and everyone chop off their richards to prevent rape.

 

Then you disagree with reality because he was removed from the venue

Not really. When a person is profoundly stupid and preaches stupid ideas he doesn't get opportunity because nobody cares.

Beto is a bottom feeder.

 

In Australia they are building detainment camps.