Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Biden Demands Stricter Gun Laws after Mass Shooting in Downtown Sacramento

Biden Demands Stricter Gun Laws after Mass Shooting in Downtown Sacramento

Sacramento police have arrested a 26-year-old man in connection with Sunday’s deadly mass shooting.

I recently reported on a mass shooting in downtown Sacramento that killed 6, which authorities indicated was likely related to gang activity.

Not 24 hours passed after the incident before Biden sensed a “crisis” and used it as an opportunity to intrude upon the Second Amendment.

Biden and gun control advocates across the country are calling for congressional action on gun control after another mass shooting — this time in Sacramento, California’s state capital.

…”Today, America once again mourns for another community devastated by gun violence,” Mr. Biden said in a statement Sunday night.

“We know these lives were not the only lives impacted by gun violence last night. And we equally mourn for those victims and families who do not make national headlines,” he said. “But we must do more than mourn; we must act.”

Presently, gun control measures that Biden has tried to pass have stalled in the US Senate.

The Democratic-controlled U.S. House passed two gun control measures backed by Biden, one that would require background checks on all gun sales and transfers and another that would lengthen background checks from three days to up to 20. But lawmakers in the Senate, which is split evenly between Republicans and Democrats, didn’t approve either measure after attempts to find a bipartisan compromise failed.

Republicans can block passage of most legislation in the Senate if it fails to receive 60 votes, through a process known as the filibuster.

“It is tough to find a path to 60,” said Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut, who has helped lead negotiations to find a compromise in the legislative body. “We have been very close several times over the last two years. I’ve been in productive negotiations with several Republicans on expansion to the background check system that can get us 60 votes.”

Murphy said he would “re-engage” with GOP lawmakers this week to see if “there’s an appetite to restart those discussions,” adding that he remained optimistic they could strike a deal.

Even if such legislation passes, it is not likely to have made much difference. Criminals are not being reigned in by California gun legislation, which is among the strictest in the nation.

The Giffords Law Center To Prevent Gun Violence, a gun control advocacy group, awarded California one of only two “A” grades in its 2020 state gun law scorecard.

“There are not a lot of As out there,” said Ari Freilich, the organization’s California legislative affairs director. “California has driven the conversation nationally.”

In contrast, Guns and Ammo magazine labeled California the 5th worst state for gun owners.

Sacramento police have arrested a 26-year-old man connected to Sunday’s deadly mass shooting. I am sure you will all be surprised that the suspect has…a prior criminal record.

Dandrae Martin, 26, was arrested and booked at the Sacramento County Jail on Monday for charges of assault with a deadly weapon and illegal firearm possession, police confirmed. He is named as a ‘related suspect’ and ineligible for bail.

He is also being held on an outstanding warrant from the the Riverside County Sheriff’s Office, according to inmate records obtained by DailyMail.com.

He is scheduled to make his first court appearance Tuesday at 3pm.

‘Right now that’s really all we’re able to share about him,’ Sacramento Police Chief Kathy Lester told KCRA.

‘As you know this is a complex investigation and we’re looking for multiple suspects and so we’re currently working to identify what his role was the night of the shooting.’

Riverside Superior Court records obtained by The Sacramento Bee also revealed that Martin was convicted in 2014 for inflicting corporal injury on a spouse.

The manhunt for others connected to the shooting is ongoing.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Colonel Travis | April 5, 2022 at 5:15 pm

Tyrants don’t care about outcomes, good or bad. Control is all that matters. No politician in California or DC or anywhere else is going to think – hmm, I wonder why these laws didn’t work, maybe we need to re-think about how we….

The dead will be used for more laws that don’t do anything but put more space between the citizens and their right to defend themselves.

Yeah, they’re not looking at the DAs who don’t prosecute criminals. They’re not looking at state legislatures that pass weak-on-crime laws or the governors that sign the laws. California has some of the strictest gun laws in the country but they need more laws that only impact law abiding citizens to solve the problems they’ve created.

    Olinser in reply to Idonttweet. | April 5, 2022 at 5:46 pm

    Actually in this case it was reported that he was released from prison on parole DESPITE the objections of the DA.

    Don’t get me wrong the leftist DAs are single-handedly destroying the rule of law, but in this particular case, we can’t blame the DA.

      CommoChief in reply to Olinser. | April 5, 2022 at 6:32 pm

      Yes indeed. Was sentenced to ten years and paroled after three over the objections of the DA. In other contexts we might call the action of the parole board an intervening act. But for their decision to release him he would still be incarcerated.

      This is the tragic vulnerability of our system. Even when LEO investigates and makes an arrest and the DA prosecutes and the jury convicts and the judge sentences; and in today’s climate each of those is not assured, a parole board composed of ideologues can still thwart justice with little to no consequences.

        NotSoFriendlyGrizzly in reply to CommoChief. | April 5, 2022 at 8:43 pm

        Simple solution: Parole Boards are equally liable for the crimes committed by those whom they release. Joe Blow committed a felony, served 1/3 of his time, got paroled and served his parole with good behavior, fine. No harm, no foul. He learned his lesson. Chester the Molester committed a felony, served 1/3 of his time, got paroled, and later (don’t care how much later) committed another crime? The parole board members who voted to release this sick- f**k, get to serve time right along side of him.

          The problem with that is parole boards are frequently FORCED to release prisoners by the DOJ. The DOJ tells a prison that they are overcrowded and have to release some prisoners. The DOJ also tells them that they can’t release prisoners who were convicted of certain crimes like dealing drugs because of Federal minimum sentencing laws. So the Parole board has no choice but to release criminals with violent non-firearm and non-drug related convictions.

      CommoChief in reply to Olinser. | April 5, 2022 at 6:44 pm

      Olinser – I should have read further, you already covered this point.

    Martin in reply to Idonttweet. | April 5, 2022 at 6:17 pm

    That is why they are sloppy enforcing the laws they have. This kind of event happens stupid people stampede to “we have to do something”. This lets them make more laws. They continue with limited or no enforcement until they get all the laws they want. Then they drop the hammer and enforce everything. Of course they still do this selectively on their enemies i.e. you and me.

    Fatkins in reply to Idonttweet. | April 5, 2022 at 7:54 pm

    Probably because the highest homicide rates are all mostly Republican states, California has a pretty low fire arms death rate and homicide rate relatively

      4fun in reply to Fatkins. | April 5, 2022 at 10:08 pm

      Now do government homicide rates through the last couple of centuries.

        Fatkins in reply to 4fun. | April 6, 2022 at 3:42 am

        You got a source for that? I’ve not come across a source that breaks down state homicide over that length of time.

          henrybowman in reply to Fatkins. | April 6, 2022 at 8:37 pm

          “You got a source for that?”

          https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE5.HTM

          “California has a pretty low fire arms death rate and homicide rate relatively”

          Not true at all.
          2/3 of firearms mortalities nationwide are suicides. (Most people don’t even realize that. twice as many firearms deaths are voluntary than are crime victims.)
          California is abnormally low on gun suicides, simply because they make it so hard for law-abiding people to get guns. But when it comes to firearms homicides, California is smack in the middle of all 50 states.

          Fatkins in reply to Fatkins. | April 6, 2022 at 9:51 pm

          @henry bowman

          The link is to a study relating to democide. It’s not really a study of crime.

          With respect to suicide your own statements point to exactly your analysis is flawed. California has a lower gun suicide rate. Therefore it’s intuitive to say well if there are more fun controls which have lowered homicide rates then that equally applies to suicide too.

          Actually according to CDC California has the 7th lowest firearms death rate

          https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm

          henrybowman in reply to Fatkins. | April 8, 2022 at 5:19 pm

          You said “state homicide.” That’s an ambiguous request. I assumed you meant “homicide by governments,” just as 4fun (to whom you were responding) did.

          Here’s the chart for homicides, suicides, and violent assaults by state, clustered by their “strong gun law rating.”

          It shows that your analysis is all wet and you haven’t a clue what the statistics from California really mean, as your “intuitive” statement is dependent on a reduction that doesn’t even exist (in fact, it’s an increase).

          Gun control laws affect suicides with statistical significance — they are totally insignificant on their effects on homicides or violent assaults. And suicides are two thirds of gun deaths. And that’s how California skates in the rankings.

      Milhouse in reply to Fatkins. | April 6, 2022 at 1:54 am

      Try adjusting those numbers for demographics and see what happens to them. You won’t like it.

        Fatkins in reply to Milhouse. | April 6, 2022 at 3:36 am

        Not the issue, the issue at question is governance. Nor does demographics support your position either since that’s not addressed by tougher laws (see the entire history of the United States)

          Jack Klompus in reply to Fatkins. | April 6, 2022 at 8:32 am

          You were exposed for the obvious idiot you are and your response is jibberish and an attempt to move the goalposts. Just give up, moron.

          Milhouse in reply to Fatkins. | April 6, 2022 at 10:07 am

          I can’ t make head or tail of your response.

          When comparing anything between states or countries, you have to adjust for demographics or your results are meaningless.

          Fatkins in reply to Fatkins. | April 6, 2022 at 12:05 pm

          @milhouse

          You don’t need to do a demographic adjustment because your comparing state Vs state. It’s a rate. I’m not clear what your trying to do with the demographics which could mean anything. Are you trying to adjust based on population density? Education, background what. Vaguely saying demographics doesn’t mean anything.

          I’m not even clear that looking at the demographics helps you either as per the link. It seems like even on a population density basis republicans still come out considerably worse

          Milhouse in reply to Fatkins. | April 6, 2022 at 8:32 pm

          When comparing states to each other you have to adjust for demographics or your results are meaningless. Some demographics have a higher base crime rate than others, so if you compare, for instance, the murder rates in Mississippi to Maine, you will always get a higher murder rate in Mississippi, because you have a higher percentage of people who are more prone to murder.

          And yes, cities, where most of the crime occurs, are usually controlled by Democrats. That’s not a coincidence.

          What on earth do you mean that policy “can only be viewed realistically in terms of states”?

          The simple fact is that when you have pro-crime government you will get more crime than you would otherwise have. That’s common sense, and anyone who tries to deny it is obviously dishonest. SF and LA have pro-crime DAs, and their inhabitants are experiencing on their skins what that means. California has a pro-crime state government, and that is also reflected all over the state, even in counties where the DA is anti-crime.

          Fatkins in reply to Fatkins. | April 6, 2022 at 10:03 pm

          @milhouse

          That’s total nonsense, you can absolutely compare on a state by state basis. You can of course ask why there are differences in the stats. Then you can look at demographics to see if there are any clues. Your example is nonsense btw. A state doesn’t have a greater proneness to crime. That doesn’t get at any underlying issue at all

          With respect to democrat controlled urban areas. Your inference is that there is a link between democrats control and higher crime rate that’s just not the case as per the linked study. There is a link between population density and crime which is why viewing it in purely those terms will give a misleading result on the basis of affiliation. Despite that republicans come out worse.

          The problem with your common sense analysis is that the stats dont support your position. Republican states have consistently higher crime and homicide rates. Again as per the linked study.

          The core question is why do republican. States perform worse with respect to crime. That’s a multi factorial problem. Clearly I think the policy if the state plays a big role in that. You seem to think demographics might explain it. What’s your theory? Are republicans more prone to crime, are the republican states poorer, or maybe it’s poor education, is there a drug problem in those states. What exactly is your argument with respect to demographics because it seems to me that will in all likely good point to an indirect mechanism of failure at state policy level

      AnAdultInDiapers in reply to Fatkins. | April 6, 2022 at 4:54 am

      Ok, based on the top 20 cities in the US with the highest murder rates:

      – Missouri : Red, but the cities (St Louis and Kansas City) are both blue
      – Maryland : Blue, state and city (Baltimore)
      – Alabama : Red, but the city (Birmingham) is blue
      – Michigan : Blue, state and city (Detroit)
      – Ohio : Red, but the cities (Dayton, Cleveland and Cincinatti) are all blue
      – Louisiana : Red, but the cities (Baton Rouge and New Orleans) are both blue
      – Tennessee : Red, but the city (Memphis) is blue
      – Virginia : State and city (Richmond) are both blue
      – Florida : Red, but the city (Miami Gardens) is blue
      – Washington DC : Blue.
      – South Carolina : Red. Cities get complicated: One (North Charleston) bridges two red and one blue county, the other (Columbia) is blue.
      – Illinois : Blue, state and city (Peoria)
      – Pennsylvania : Blue, state and city (Philadelphia)
      – California : Blue, state and city (San Bernandino)
      – Georgia : Blue, state and city (Columbus)

      So let’s tally that up: 7 red states and 8 blue ones, making your claim entirely wrong.
      Now let’s compare cities: 0.7 red cities, 19.3 blue ones.

      Spotting patterns yet?
      States :

        That’s a dumb analysis. Democrats dominate urban areas so of course framing it in that way will paint the picture you want. That’s not the case on a state by state basis which is also fairer from a legislative perspective.

          taurus the judge in reply to Fatkins. | April 6, 2022 at 6:23 am

          In plain non-fat boy English run through the Camel-toe translation matrix…

          That was a kill shot right between the eyes that destroyed all of my false points and I have no response other than unintelligible gibberish.

          Jack Klompus in reply to Fatkins. | April 6, 2022 at 8:49 am

          You got destroyed, you inarticulate buffoon.

          Fatkins in reply to Fatkins. | April 6, 2022 at 9:58 am

          @taurus the judge

          Perhaps you misunderstanding. Using urban Vs rural stats is statistically unsound in the sense of democrat Vs republican. It skews the results. So no I’m afraid you supposed kill shot is firmly a dud.

          If you are unable to understand what I’m saying perhaps ask instead for clarification instead of resorting to ad hominem.

          @jack

          Nope not remotely, restating as hominem doesn’t improve your worthless position

          Milhouse in reply to Fatkins. | April 6, 2022 at 10:09 am

          It’s a good analysis since it destroys your whole premise. Democrats dominate urban counties, and therefore control law enforcement in those counties. And those counties are where the vast bulk of the crime takes place.

          Fatkins in reply to Fatkins. | April 6, 2022 at 10:39 am

          I posted a link above with respect to stats on murder rates etc. Seems like you are incorrect.

          Fatkins in reply to Fatkins. | April 6, 2022 at 10:42 am

          @milhouse

          Nope, because crime levels is intrinsically linked to population levels. It’s just not statistically sound to frame the stats in those terms. Your obviously going to have more democrat crime in urban areas because the majority is under Democrats control, it skews the stats. Besides which I’ve now linked to a study which refutes the position which does a more rigorous analysis taking into account urban Vs rural etc

          Milhouse in reply to Fatkins. | April 6, 2022 at 8:34 pm

          You’re not making any sense at all.

          henrybowman in reply to Fatkins. | April 6, 2022 at 8:50 pm

          Your entire argument is statistical crap.

          http://www.gunfacts.info/blog/giffords-goof/

          Fatkins in reply to Fatkins. | April 6, 2022 at 10:19 pm

          @henry bowman

          With respect your link is to a site with a dumpster fire if cherry picked nonsense which doesn’t remotely make the case as to why republican states have higher homicide and firearms death rates. The reasoning that’s gone into some of it is utterly laughable. It doesn’t even attempt to answer the question merely obfuscating with nonsense. The question remains why does the US and republican states in particular have such high fire arm murder rates and indeed murder rates in general.

          healthguyfsu in reply to Fatkins. | April 6, 2022 at 11:11 pm

          Fatty, your “analysis”, which is not one at all (it’s simply a regurgitated link), is data as cooked as the false analysis saying red states use more welfare per capita than blue ones so conservatives must need welfare.

          What both the welfare and your link fail to account for is nuance…that “red” and “blue” states aren’t one-sided border zones. Most states are close to 50/50, 60/40 (with even the most skewed of these areas tending to poll in the 70/30 range) indicating a high presence of citizens representing both ideologies within state borders. Even the skewed states are probably not that skewed since minority voters are less likely to turn out when they know their party is outnumbered.

          What does this ultimately mean: conservatives in blue states use welfare and commit crimes and liberals in red states use welfare and commit crimes. Neither are accounted for in these state by state analyses. While city isn’t a perfect analysis either, it’s far more precise than your cooked state analysis because it sorts data into smaller generalizations. The smaller you can organize your groups, the better your analysis and any statistician will tell you as such.

          The more you know…

It’s being reported that NOT ONLY was this scumbag a criminal, HE SHOULD HAVE STILL BEEN IN JAIL, and that he had been sentenced to approximately 10 years, and was paroled after only 3 years over the objections of the DA.

So we have a criminal that WAS SUPPOSED to still be in prison, released early because of the leniency of bleeding heart liberals, go on a shooting spree with a gun that was already illegal for him to possess.

But sure you dumb fucks, try to make this about gun control. That’ll really help your chances in November.

    Peabody in reply to Olinser. | April 5, 2022 at 7:47 pm

    The new Supreme Court nominee would be in favor of a reduced sentence and early release for this guy. And three Republican Senators would raise their hand and say, “YES!”

    Fatkins in reply to Olinser. | April 6, 2022 at 5:07 am

    Ok here is a test for you which countries in the first world have the lowest crime rates now compare those countries with the US. The US has a large bloated expensive ineffective justice system. It costs a fortune and has higher crime rates than many other first world countries. That’s what tough on crime policies have got you. A large tax bill.

      Milhouse in reply to Fatkins. | April 6, 2022 at 10:10 am

      Again, compare by demographics. And don’t forget to adjust European figures over time, in line with the dramatic change in demographics in recent years.

        Fatkins in reply to Milhouse. | April 6, 2022 at 10:52 am

        Your trying to move the goalposts. The issue I’m highlighting is the national picture in comparison with similarly wealthy countries. Trying to use demographical subsets won’t help your case because the question relates to the big picture not a subset of issues which may or may not even be relavent. The control is compatible wealth which even then would favour the US which is the wealthiest country in the world. You can deep dive into the demographics but when you are looking at a country by country analysis you can draw broad conclusions based on a side by side look at the figures. The US does pretty poorly.

        Fatkins in reply to Milhouse. | April 6, 2022 at 10:56 am

        And actually when you look at comparison indices the US does really very poorly indeed ranking 69th
        https://www.prosperity.com/rankings

        Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | April 6, 2022 at 8:39 pm

        You’re still not making any sense. What has wealth got to do with the price of fish? Your whole post is gobbledegook. Comparing countries or states or cities is invalid unless you first adjust for demographics, and these tables never do that. When you do, you find that the comparisons are dramatically changed.

      henrybowman in reply to Fatkins. | April 6, 2022 at 8:52 pm

      America has a “tough on crime” justice system like it has a “capitalist” economy.
      A “tough on crime” justice system actually kills people who sorely need killing.
      We don’t even keep them in jail to make sure they get tried.

Water is wet. The sun comes up in the east.
Democrats desire unconstitutional laws.

I think maybe it would be better to make laws against Democrats being on parole boards, working as Judges and DAs. Probably just any government position.

    NotSoFriendlyGrizzly in reply to Martin. | April 5, 2022 at 8:46 pm

    Maybe it would just be better to make it against the law to vote Democrat….. And yes, I agree.

    4fun in reply to Martin. | April 5, 2022 at 10:09 pm

    And for each illegal alien that crosses the southern border one democrat must leave the country.

We don’t have a gun problem, we have a black problem.

Take all guns away from all government employees. Joe wants fewer guns and he could get it with a exec order.

A better idea would be to direct every US Attorney to seek Federal charges for any firearm related offenses in connection with every case where the facts support it. Five years of federal time for simply illegal possession or use of firearms with transfer of custody to the Feds upon completion of State Sentence.

That would actually make an impact by getting criminals off the street and behind bars. Then keeping them incarcerated v a woke parole board kicking them loose to commit more violent crimes.

    Milhouse in reply to CommoChief. | April 6, 2022 at 10:42 am

    Here’s an idea: Hundreds of times every day, people fail background checks while attempting to purchase guns. The gun-grabbers trumpet these numbers as a sign of how effective their laws are, since each one of these failed checks means a criminal who couldn’t buy a gun, and therefore potentially many future crimes prevented.

    So you’d think that they would investigate each such incident, and if appropriate prosecute the person who illegally attempted to make the purchase. And yet there are no such prosecutions. The system has been up now for over 20 years and as far as I know there have never been any prosecutions. Isn’t that strange?

    Let the next GOP president order US Attorneys to investigate each failed purchase attempt, and prosecute where appropriate. My suspicion is that the reason they don’t do it is because when they try they find that in most if not all cases prosecution is not appropriate because no crime was committed. In other words, the background check came back with a false positive. Which of course would destroy their talking point, as well as political support for continuing the existing system let alone extending it.

      Fatkins in reply to Milhouse. | April 6, 2022 at 12:17 pm

      And criminalise more people that doesn’t really make a lot of sense given the incarceration rate. The desired effect has been achieved so the question becomes what other measures in addition would be effective.

        Milhouse in reply to Fatkins. | April 6, 2022 at 8:43 pm

        You’re still not making any sense. People who illegally attempt to buy guns are criminals. Why would you not want to prosecute them? Unless the answer is because you will find that they’re actually not criminals after all, and your whole system is useless and unjustified.

        And what do you mean “given the incarceration rate”? The USA’s incarceration rate is too low, as evidenced by the crime rate. If it were appropriately higher there’d be less crime, because more criminals would be inside.

        “The desired effect has been achieved” only if the “desired effect” is to score political points while restricting the civil liberties of decent law-abiding people.

      henrybowman in reply to Milhouse. | April 6, 2022 at 9:10 pm

      Well no, it isn’t accurate to say there are NO prosecutions.
      There have been prosecutions. Only a relative handful on the federal level — fewer than 100 a year, and more than half of those ending in acquittals. This is because one, the NICS check has a stupendous false denial rate, and two, some valid denials are either prosecuted on the state level, or were punted at some level of government as “not appealing to judges and juries from a public safety standpoint.”

      In 2009, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) denied 71,010 individuals at the gun store, but only 6.6% (4,681 individuals) were referred for further investigation by ATF field offices. A Department of Justice report stated:
      “The remaining denials (66,329, or about 93%) did not meet referral guidelines or were overturned after review by Brady Operations or after the FBI received additional information.”
      Of those ATF field office investigations, 51% (2,390 individuals) were of delayed denial cases, not initial denials. 572 of these were admitted to “not [be] a prohibited person.”
      This leaves 4,154 legitimate FBI denials in 2009, resulting in a false-positive denial rate of roughly 94.2%.
      https://www.shotgunworld.com/threads/criminal-investigations-for-innocent-gun-owners.542203/

      CommoChief in reply to Milhouse. | April 7, 2022 at 2:52 pm

      The background check has a high rate of false rejections and attempting to prosecute these would show the inherent flaws which is likely why they aren’t. Just a guess but it seems logical.

      The fact is that the Feds have a way to reduce gun crime by removing those who commit Fed violations. Prosecution of these violations that are very simple to prove and have a five year minimum in the Federal prison would provide a disincentive. At a minimum it would lock up the violators for mandatory sentences.

        henrybowman in reply to CommoChief. | April 8, 2022 at 5:41 pm

        “attempting to prosecute these would show the inherent flaws which is likely why they aren’t.”

        Actually, starting this year, they intend to.
        Another Biden administration “improvement.”
        Let the clown show begin.
        It will be a laugh riot to watch the FBI and the BATF seltzer each other once the truth becomes apparent… over whose data is at fault, and by how much worse, and why.
        Though the thousands of people in the audience who get soaked won’t be laughing.
        Won’t be any confetti in those buckets, boys.

If gun control laws worked, you wouldn’t have anybody being injured by a firearm, much less killed by one, in Commiefornia. They are candyland for a gun-grabber, they have every law you can imagine already and those obviously have not worked. They don’t work for a simple reason, they’re trying to regulate the law-abiding citizens that weren’t going to misuse their firearms in the first place, while the criminals simply ignore them.

    Fatkins in reply to Ironclaw. | April 6, 2022 at 5:09 am

    The firearms death rate in CA is lower than many states so it seems like you are wrong on the face of it.

      Milhouse in reply to Fatkins. | April 6, 2022 at 10:18 am

      Again, adjust for demographics, and adjust again over time for changing demographics.

        Fatkins in reply to Milhouse. | April 6, 2022 at 12:12 pm

        On what basis, which demographics? The comparison is between states. You seem to think your objection makes sense it doesn’t. It’s perfectly reasonable to compare a homicide on a state by state basis. I f you think republican states have a higher crime rate for a demographic reason then state it.

      henrybowman in reply to Fatkins. | April 6, 2022 at 9:11 pm

      You don’t know what you’re talking about. I’m not afraid of suiciding myself with a gun, that’s the only category where California is lower.

      CommoChief in reply to Fatkins. | April 7, 2022 at 3:01 pm

      Try looking at zip codes. What you discover is that the majority of crimes, even in a city like Chicago, are committed in a subset of the City.

      The problem you may not be grasping is that our Federal and State governments don’t do the majority of criminal prosecution. In the US that’s under the control of elected DA, District Attorney, who are responsible for their County.

      Where the electorate chooses a DA determined to prosecute then crimes are prosecuted. Where they instead select a DA more concerned with social justice theory then less crimes are prosecuted. So the composition of the electorate at the County level is paramount.

      The same for our Judicial system. Most district and Circuit Judges, these are the Judges who oversee the vast majority of criminal trials, are elected. An electorate choosing a Judge more concerned with social justice theory will impose lighter sentences.

Obama joking, “Thank you Vice President Biden.”

Biden snickering, “Ha ha, The jokes on you. It was my wife who was VP under you.”

MisterSadFaceMcGee | April 5, 2022 at 6:59 pm

CA has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. If they don’t work here, they won’t work anywhere.

henrybowman | April 5, 2022 at 7:05 pm

“Biden Demands Stricter Gun Laws after Mass Shooting in Downtown Sacramento”

Well, of course he does. If there are two sides to any issue. Brandon invariably comes down in favor of the wrong one.

California gun laws are rated A+ by the Brady Campaign, and is #1 on the list of states with the “strongest” gun laws.

Looks like they don’t work.

Obviously they need more. And then more. Until they do.

And while we’re at it, nurse, put three more leeches on the patient in 2-B — he’s looking even paler than yesterday.

Real American | April 5, 2022 at 7:10 pm

If you demand gun control after a certain shooting, then you need to specify how your proposed law would have stopped the specific shooting you’re reacting to.

My guess, is that these thugs didn’t buy their guns after having a universal background check or via some “gun show loophole” and the guns probably aren’t homemade.

“In tonight’s headines, President Biden said something stupid. Stay tuned for more on this astonishingly predictable phenomenon!”

taurus the judge | April 5, 2022 at 7:26 pm

Don’t fall for the textbook Marxist trick.

“Gun control” is code for domination of society- it has nothing to do with crime, never has and never will.

Socialism needs crime ( civil unrest) as a perpetual buffering agent to keep the people from banding together ( too busy keeping the wild animals out) and in a constant state of individual fear. It keeps the people from organizing against the controllers.

Don’t fall for the hype about them being stupid and all that- thats a deliberate straw man out there as a red herring to keep people from realizing the real goals and objectives.

    You do realise that by part of socialism is people banding together right, and has a long history of banding together against ‘controllers’. Its almost like you have no idea what you are talking about

      henrybowman in reply to Fatkins. | April 6, 2022 at 1:42 am

      For certain I have no idea what you’re talking about.
      You may want to reword it to be grammatical and readable.

        Fatkins in reply to henrybowman. | April 6, 2022 at 3:45 am

        It is readable i couldn’t care less about writing quality. It’s the content that matters in the context of the thread which is sorely lacking in manner comments.

          taurus the judge in reply to Fatkins. | April 6, 2022 at 5:45 am

          The significance ( or relevance) of anything you say is of no value whatsoever regardless of the passage of time

          Jack Klompus in reply to Fatkins. | April 6, 2022 at 8:34 am

          You are an incredibly stupid and inarticulate human being.

          Fatkins in reply to Fatkins. | April 6, 2022 at 10:02 am

          @taurus
          Do you have nothing, you don’t demonstrate a strong knowledge of socialism or Marxism. In fact it’s quite apparent that you are completely ignorant

          @jack

          You’ve yet to say anything substantive, if you can’t articulate a reason why I’m wrong then that’s suggestive that actually it might be a case of you projecting.

          Milhouse in reply to Fatkins. | April 6, 2022 at 10:45 am

          It’s incomprehensible. I have no idea what you were trying to communicate.

          Fatkins in reply to Fatkins. | April 6, 2022 at 12:22 pm

          @milhouse

          I pointed out obvious contradictions in Taurus’s points. I’m not sure it could be any more obvious.

          Claim 1) socialism prevents people banding together. Response it does the opposite.

          Claim 2) socialism /Marxism prevents organisation against ‘confrollers’. Historically socialism has been anti controller and indeed organises around the idea of opposing controllers for example unions organising to counteract the control of capitalists.

          Milhouse in reply to Fatkins. | April 6, 2022 at 8:46 pm

          You seem to be completely disconnected from reality. Socialism and Marxism are all about control. That’s what they are. That’s their definition. More control and preventing people from overthrowing them.

      taurus the judge in reply to Fatkins. | April 6, 2022 at 5:48 am

      Look, the fat boy is back in all of his raving lunacy spouting even more gibberish.

      Politico is getting desperate now, they are sending in the C team.

        Well I have returned after being shadow banned yes.

        You don’t seem capable of a coherent response to anything I say.

        Unfortunately for you my ‘raving lunacy’ has the benefit of being firmly based in reality. You not so much.

      Paddy M in reply to Fatkins. | April 6, 2022 at 6:37 pm

      This is probably the dumbest explanation of socialism I’ve ever seen.

        Fatkins in reply to Paddy M. | April 6, 2022 at 8:10 pm

        Its not an explanation of socialism its a specific critique on a comment made that vaguely uses terms like socialism.

      healthguyfsu in reply to Fatkins. | April 6, 2022 at 11:24 pm

      And how has that worked out in practice?

Six dead and the charges are “assault with a deadly weapon” not “murder with a firearms sentence enhancement”? What am I missing?

    From what I understand, assault is to keep him in jail while the rest of the charges get written up and arranged. Assault is easy to charge, murder more complicated, and if they rush the indictment….

    Milhouse in reply to randian. | April 6, 2022 at 10:46 am

    Perhaps he didn’t do any of the killings. Or at least they’re not yet sure whether he did any of the killings.

I keep my weapons thank you very much.

The guys brother – Smiley I think it is although Frowny might be his new feature – modified a gun to go fully automatic.
Why it’s almost like criminals don’t look at the laws before committing a crime.
What we really need is criminal control. Probably less than 10% of the population causes 90% of the crimes.

    henrybowman in reply to 4fun. | April 6, 2022 at 1:47 am

    These are trendy these days. If you can manage to get one all the way to your mailbox, they’re as easy as putting a Calvin window decal on your Honda.

Look closely at the picture: you can see the shadow of Barack Hussein Obama’s (or whoever he really is) arm up Biden’s rear-end, making him talk.

drednicolson | April 6, 2022 at 12:02 am

They don’t mind crooks. Crooks can be bought, and every would-be tyrant needs hired muscle.

Since they now have three persons arrested for this shooting, the fervor has died down as all three are among a “protect class” of felons.