3 ms·

> The reason prosecution is so low and doesn't include more violent offenders is because the federal government is lackadaisical and decides not to prosecute th

by zepto 5y ago

> The reason prosecution is so low and doesn't include more violent offenders is because the federal government is lackadaisical and decides not to prosecute them. They instead allow the states to prosecute under state law. Wait, so the 3% number is a lie? It’s not the percentage prosecuted. It’s the percentage prosecuted by the federal government rather than the states? You said: “Only 3% of federal firearm offenses are prosecuted.” Which turns out to be false. The offenses are prosecuted, just not by the federal government. You say that is ‘lackadaisical’ as if you have some justification for that, but deferring to states is a common practice in the US and indicates no such thing. It sure looks like you are intentionally trying to mislead people, otherwise you’d probably have mentioned this up front. As far as racism goes, it’s pretty easy to understand if you apply Ibram Kendi’s definition - if it disproportionately affects black communities, it is a racist policy.

giantg2 5y ago
"Which turns out to be false. The offenses are prosecuted, just not by the federal government." You don't seem to understand how the law works. The Federal offenses are not prosecuted. The State offenses are. My statement is true. "but deferring to states is a common practice in the US and indicates no such thing." Lack of interest in pursuing the law would fit with the definition of lackadaisical. I've given you the stats that show they are not interested in pursuing the federal crimes. This isn't really deferring to the states. If one is not guilty under state law, the feds may subsequently prosecute under the federal law. Even if you're found guilty at the state level, they might prosecute you just to make an example of you (Chauvin, recently). It's a sloppy way for the people in power to ignore equal application of the law by picking and choosing who deserves it, which to me undermines the very principle of rule of law. "It sure looks like you are intentionally trying to mislead people, otherwise you’d probably have mentioned this up front." I have not tried to mislead anyone. Perhaps you were projecting your own ideas on it based on your lack of willingness to engage in a meaningful debate. After all, you're the one calling my statements total BS, yet not providing any responses to the questions posed around sources or data to support your position or refute the data I have provided. "As far as racism goes, it’s pretty easy to understand if you apply Ibram Kendi’s definition - if it disproportionately affects black communities, it is a racist policy." If that's the case, everything is racist and the very definition provided is racist since it only deals with "black communities" and not others. Perhaps we can use a widely accepted definition, like from a dictionary. Then you can also explain what is being disproportionately affected along with the why and how. So, where is your response to the requests around definitions and data for "illegally" purchased guns and their impact? Conveniently ignoring this too? I'm starting to think you are a troll.
- zepto 5y ago
  > You don't seem to understand how the law works. The Federal offenses are not prosecuted. The State offenses are. My statement is true. It’s only true in a narrow technical sense. You were clearly trying to give the impression that people were simply getting away with these offenses, when what is actually happening is that the federal government doesn’t see the need to prosecute people who are already being prosecuted by the states. > It's a sloppy way for the people in power to ignore equal application of the law by picking and choosing who deserves it, which to me undermines the very principle of rule of law. Prosecutorial discretion definitely undermines the rule of law, and is a well known people, but it’s everywhere in every justice system and has nothing to do with the government’s approach to guns. https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229 https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp... As for the Kendi definition, I was using black in this example because most gun control laws disproportionately affect black people. Substitute other races if you like. I don’t need to refute your position with data - that’s not what’s wrong with it. We’ve shown that your 3% claim was misleading as presented.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    "We’ve shown that your 3% claim was misleading as presented." Lol where did you show that? The 3% claim is only misleading because you are applying a context to it that it was not intended for. The point is that additional federal gun laws will not be enforced because the government does not enforce the current ones, and doesn't even have the resources to do so. If anything, you have been the misleading one by presenting false information and failing to back up your (trolling) claims. You can go back to the root comment to see that they are approaching this from a light that additional federal gun laws would not be effective since the current ones are not being enforced. "I don’t need to refute your position with data - that’s not what’s wrong with it." Then, please, get to the point and tell me what is wrong with it. Stop draffing this out with unsubstantiated claims, twisting words, and flat out lies. Not all my questions were data related, but also conceptual - yet you ignore those as well (for example, you still haven't defined the 'illegal' gun purchases). Good bye, troll.
    - 5y ago

by zepto 5y ago

giantg2 5y ago

"Which turns out to be false. The offenses are prosecuted, just not by the federal government." You don't seem to understand how the law works. The Federal offenses are not prosecuted. The State offenses are. My statement is true. "but deferring to states is a common practice in the US and indicates no such thing." Lack of interest in pursuing the law would fit with the definition of lackadaisical. I've given you the stats that show they are not interested in pursuing the federal crimes. This isn't really deferring to the states. If one is not guilty under state law, the feds may subsequently prosecute under the federal law. Even if you're found guilty at the state level, they might prosecute you just to make an example of you (Chauvin, recently). It's a sloppy way for the people in power to ignore equal application of the law by picking and choosing who deserves it, which to me undermines the very principle of rule of law. "It sure looks like you are intentionally trying to mislead people, otherwise you’d probably have mentioned this up front." I have not tried to mislead anyone. Perhaps you were projecting your own ideas on it based on your lack of willingness to engage in a meaningful debate. After all, you're the one calling my statements total BS, yet not providing any responses to the questions posed around sources or data to support your position or refute the data I have provided. "As far as racism goes, it’s pretty easy to understand if you apply Ibram Kendi’s definition - if it disproportionately affects black communities, it is a racist policy." If that's the case, everything is racist and the very definition provided is racist since it only deals with "black communities" and not others. Perhaps we can use a widely accepted definition, like from a dictionary. Then you can also explain what is being disproportionately affected along with the why and how. So, where is your response to the requests around definitions and data for "illegally" purchased guns and their impact? Conveniently ignoring this too? I'm starting to think you are a troll.

zepto 5y ago
> You don't seem to understand how the law works. The Federal offenses are not prosecuted. The State offenses are. My statement is true. It’s only true in a narrow technical sense. You were clearly trying to give the impression that people were simply getting away with these offenses, when what is actually happening is that the federal government doesn’t see the need to prosecute people who are already being prosecuted by the states. > It's a sloppy way for the people in power to ignore equal application of the law by picking and choosing who deserves it, which to me undermines the very principle of rule of law. Prosecutorial discretion definitely undermines the rule of law, and is a well known people, but it’s everywhere in every justice system and has nothing to do with the government’s approach to guns. https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229 https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp... As for the Kendi definition, I was using black in this example because most gun control laws disproportionately affect black people. Substitute other races if you like. I don’t need to refute your position with data - that’s not what’s wrong with it. We’ve shown that your 3% claim was misleading as presented.
- giantg2 5y ago
  "We’ve shown that your 3% claim was misleading as presented." Lol where did you show that? The 3% claim is only misleading because you are applying a context to it that it was not intended for. The point is that additional federal gun laws will not be enforced because the government does not enforce the current ones, and doesn't even have the resources to do so. If anything, you have been the misleading one by presenting false information and failing to back up your (trolling) claims. You can go back to the root comment to see that they are approaching this from a light that additional federal gun laws would not be effective since the current ones are not being enforced. "I don’t need to refute your position with data - that’s not what’s wrong with it." Then, please, get to the point and tell me what is wrong with it. Stop draffing this out with unsubstantiated claims, twisting words, and flat out lies. Not all my questions were data related, but also conceptual - yet you ignore those as well (for example, you still haven't defined the 'illegal' gun purchases). Good bye, troll.
  - 5y ago