The only thing to crofl is how many of you lackwits I have desperately trying to prove me wrong. You don't aspire to intelligence, it threatens you. Your desperation over the years at this point is amusing. I am used to it at this point.
You still do a very poor job presenting a coherent argument. Only chance of you making partner is sticking around long enough that they just have seniority sway them. You are just about worthless in presenting a case, counselor crayola.
If the basis for increasing the severity is the possibility of future crime then it is what it is. Stealing a gun by definition does not mean that more harm will come. I can use a stolen TV for the furtherance of crime as well; why not use that as a basis for stealing TVs or anything else that could be used for a crime also being a felony?
I am all for making use of a stolen weapon an aggravated crime but I am not down for punishing someone extra for a theft when it is not guaranteed to be used for a further illegal purpose. Either of you going to address this or you just going to cup his balls some more?
That is my entire point of talking about presumption. You presume that they will be guilty of a future crime. Punish people for what they have done and not what they might do. I never brought up a trial. I am discussing policy. I guess we can laugh at your myopic approach to the basis of policy and your thoughts that such legal principles only have a purpose in a trial.
And as I said, it is self affirming legal argument. Hunting is not in and of itself an illegal act. That a stolen gun makes it illegal is a self affirming legal circle. Neither of you address that. Instead we get the counselor crayola masturbation routine. Anyway that is besides the point. The person in question can do nothing at all meaning not everyone who steals a gun will commit further crime. Your partner in stupidity thinks it furthers his point.
Be nice if you guys would actually argue points. I get tired of repeating the things you guys ignore that are central to my point.
You have completely lost sight of the argument trying to win a single point as you are wont to do. Thus my missing the forest for a tree comment earlier.
Some cases of gun theft will result in no further crime. That is an hetical to your basis of the increased penalty. Handwave at your lackwitted question that misses the point some more.
Thanks for the career advice homie
Also, who the uses "lackwit" as insult. Are you 90?
How many stolen tv's are used for homicides? How many stolen guns are used for homicides?
Or maybe it's a good idea to do something, like locking people up who steal guns, before someone dies?
There's no presumption, it's crime that would trigger all the due process protections associated with a crime. That it's punished as a felony is to deter something bad from happening in the future. It's the same reason why having 10 pounds vs. a gram of coke in your possession is punished more severely. These are pretty obvious policy determinations, which makes your claim of my "myopic approach" pretty laughable.
Crofl self-affirming legal argument. What the does that even mean? There's no increase in punishment because you're hunting with a stolen gun. The crime is stealing the ing gun. That it used to be punished as a felony was because, you know, people aren't hunting with stolen guns. They're killing other people.
Sorry, hard to get to arguing the merits while sifting through the career advice and zinges like "lackwit"
Do me a favor and google the statistics on the number of stolen guns used in violent crimes.
Crofl hunting
So far the only scenario you have come up with where the theft of a gun results in no further crime is this:
Do you really believe the you type? Do you believe people that steal guns take them apart and put them away? What would be the point of stealing a gun if you were just going to take it apart and put it away?
Stolen guns are altered (another crime), sold (another crime), or used (another crime). Your ONE example of lawful activity with a stolen gun is the stupidest ing thing I've read on this board in a while.
TVs don't kill people. People with TVs kill people.
I said further crime. I did not say homicide but just because you lack imagination in how a TV could be used to facilitate a homicide only speaks to your intelligence. I will help: surveillance. Think about it. If you cannot think on how a TV could be used in another felony at all then that is pretty sad.Thanks for the career advice homie
Also, who the uses "lackwit" as insult. Are you 90?
How many stolen tv's are used for homicides? How many stolen guns are used for homicides?
Or maybe it's a good idea to do something, like locking people up who steal guns, before someone dies?
There's no presumption, it's crime that would trigger all the due process protections associated with a crime. That it's punished as a felony is to deter something bad from happening in the future. It's the same reason why having 10 pounds vs. a gram of coke in your possession is punished more severely. These are pretty obvious policy determinations, which makes your claim of my "myopic approach" pretty laughable.
Crofl self-affirming legal argument. What the does that even mean? There's no increase in punishment because you're hunting with a stolen gun. The crime is stealing the ing gun. That it used to be punished as a felony was because, you know, people aren't hunting with stolen guns. They're killing other people.
Sorry, hard to get to arguing the merits while sifting through the career advice and zinges like "lackwit"
Do me a favor and google the statistics on the number of stolen guns used in violent crimes.
Crofl hunting
I did look it up. How about you present your findings rather than the masturbation routine, counselor crayola. You guys are doing a great job in pointing out the basis for control of the common denominator in all gun crimes though.
If you steal more than $950.01 or more worth of property it is a felony. It already has similar graduations in the statute. You really don't think things through.
at using drug laws as a basis for future laws.
What does it even mean? Again, you not understanding is not surprising. Not all activities with a stolen gun are by definition illegal despite certain ones being legislated as such. Intellectual laziness rears it's ugly head.
It wasn't advice. It was an observation as to your a en, dimwit. You do a very poor job keeping track of the flow of argument. It's why I ask you if you write your counts in crayola. Then again I doubt they let you have such la ude on any case.
It doesn't matter what I believe. Point is it is possible. Incredulity is not an argument, dimwit.
Do you think that there might be some sort of connection between stealing guns and future crimes? And that connection might not exist with other objects?
Still waiting on those tv stats.
Crofl imagination.
Show me yours and I'll show you mine.
A gun that could do a pretty good job of killing someone costs less than $950. Who's the one not thinking things through?
Do you have a substantive point about the policy point being made here? I thought we were actually arguing the points?
Well, that's not right. Possession of a stolen gun is, you know, illegal. So ya, all activities with a stolen gun are by definition illegal.
Speaking of laziness, do you think that there's a problem with deterring people from stealing guns? Or do you think we should loosen the penalties for people who do so?
You'd have a point if there was rampant, non-violent crime usage of stolen weapons (crofl taking them apart). So far, you have a couple of ridiculous hypotheticals. The statistics, on the other hand, speak for themselves.
Crofl laziness.
Awww, you're so sweet.
What is more likely, a criminal steals a gun and takes it apart and puts it away or a criminal steals a gun and uses it in another crime?
You are the one that presented the number of stolen guns argument. You don't support it with and it has as much merit. Yeah laziness.
Ridiculous hypotheticals? Again incredulity is not an argument. Fact is that it is a reasonable possibility. Much more reasonable than every single stolen gun will be used in a homicide or violent crime.
My issue is not with deterrence. My issue is with fairness. I never said stealing guns should be legalized so try again. I just said I was fine with making crimes involving stolen guns becoming aggravated felonies. I am interested in punishing people for what they have done and not what they might have done.
You guys aren't. That is okay. You coming in partway through the argument and fumbling around points is amusing though.
That is besides the point but its cute watching you move your goalposts.
You dumb s are boring and I have some shows to watch.
Show me yours and I'll show you mine
Reasonable possibility?
What are the stats on tv-murders? Can you give me one news article of a tv being used as the murder weapon?
This has got to be the dumbest "double-down" I've ever heard of. Are you serious? You think not only a) people use tv's to kill people but also b) that it's a reasonable possibility. Do you know what reasonable means?
No one ever said all stolen guns are used in subsequent crimes.
No, your problem is definitely with deterrence. You're not wanting to admit the obvious: that people often steal guns for use in subsequent crimes. This isn't like stealing a dresser, or a computer. There's a connection there that doesn't exist with other objects. More to the point: since guns are kinda good at killing people, and because death is bad, the law figures it's a good idea to deal with that on the front-end. That's what deterrence is: preventing people from doing something before it happens.
I guess to you, fairness means exposing more people to danger and/or death.
That's exactly the point.
Tell us if anything good happens on the Real Housewives tonight, will ya?
nothing has moved. It's fun watching you try and get out of this. You are almost to the point of arguing against yourself.
Should have known better than to allow Dr. Dumb and Counselor Crayola to define the parameters of the issue. It's my own fault. Between poor reading and critical thinking skills as well as a penchant for dropping arguments and not understanding various forms of proof I should have realized that neither can be trusted.
I was under the impression that the statue raised the limit on gun thefts specifically. The change which passed making this crying over spilled milk simply raises the felony limit for theft, period.
So in other words a limit that has been such for 30 or so years and does not consider inflation should not be changed because some but not all firearm thefts would be affected. IOW, nothing should change because it also effects guns. The TV or any other good that I was just told by the sophist is not going to hurt someone should remain a felony because guns can be stolen too.
From talking to some friends of mine from Modesto, it's an obfuscation campaign led by Dr Dumb s favorite special interest: the gun lobby. There are several things to consider.
1) There were already firearms worth less than the previous limit whose THEFT was only a misdemeanor before. This was moreso 40 years ago.
2) There will still be guns worth more than the new limit whose THEFT will be a felony after it goes into effect.
3) The previous $250 limit has been the same since the 1970s and had not adjusted for inflation at all.
4) No gun laws were changed. IOW, possession of a stolen gun in and of itself remains a felony. Trafficking a stolen gun remains a much more egregious penalty. IOW, this notion that there is not a felony deterrence for stealing firearms is horse .
You are one stupid .
It all makes sense now. You were arguing something you'd never read despite the link being posted, of which you even quoted.
More stupidity. Not a single mention against TV's or any other stolen good being reduced to misdemeanors.
Out of words for your stupidity.
I will admit I was misled by your fixation on the gun angle. The theft statute does not distinguish for guns at all. That is your assertion and I was led astray. Gun price ranges have always straddled the limit and always will. If you want special consideration for guns you already have that through several other felony counts for prosecutors to work with. Your complaint has no merit.
This is a waste of time. The measure passed. You lost.
Crofl, fuzzy. Of course the statute doesn't distinguish gun thefts specifically. That's not how you write laws. You write them broadly enough to give prosecutors advantages, ie, being able to charge possession of stolen goods under 950 as "receiving" stolen goods, a felony.
I dunno who you talked to, but they're about as dumb as you.
http://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2014/gener...y-analysis.pdf
So now that the parameters of the proposition are clear Dr' Dumb and Counselor Crayola are now left with ad hominem.
And a double
I take it by your silence on the substantive point, you didn't read that link, did ya?
There was no misleading you are just a stupid .
You led yourself astray you stupid . I said from the get go stolen guns were previously an automatic felony, and are now simply seen as another stolen good resulting in a a misdemeanor.
The overwhelming majority of stolen guns do not straddle the new $950 limit, not even close. The overwhelming majority of stolen guns are handguns which average around $500. People aren't running around stealing over/under Benelli's and selling them on the street.
This has been a complete waste of time considering you hadn't even read nor understood the proposition in question. This had everything to do with punishing people who steal guns with a harsher penalty than the guy who stole a TV. It was so simple, yet you failed to grasp it. Now that you've read it you actually agree with me but don't have the balls to admit you were wrong and come clean. Even with the anonymity a message board provides you are still a coward.
An anti-gunner arguing for reduced penalties for gun theft, ing classic.
Those Benelli's are nice doe
So I am supposed to read the link and address some argument therein?
This is what I get at about your inability to articulate arguments on your own, counselor crayola. I addressed what you wrote and seeing your recognition as to what it means to drop another's arguments that holds to my rebuttal.
There is no 'correct' way to write a law and if you think the correct way is to make it easier for prosecutors to pin felonies on citizens then we are just going to have to disagree. Personally I find ambiguities that you are deploring the removal of to be abominations.
How about you make your own arguments or at the very least quote someone else's rather than alluding to one because you don't have the ability to articulate. This is why I think you have to be a ty attorney.
And there you go again making it all about guns again. I support bringing the theft limit into the new century
You also don't have the foggiest about my position especially seeing how you dumbed it down as you have.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
