State Senator Luis Sepúlveda Statement on Gun Violence

[gunpoliticsny]

State Senator Luis Sepúlveda Statement on Gun Violence.​

 

[kev74]

State Senator Luis Sepúlveda Statement on Gun Violence

Fixed it!

(Bronx, NY) – In recent days, New Yorkers have been mourning the loss of several community members at the hands of gun violence. The root of gun violence, however, has often been linked to social injustice criminals. Historically, our communities have suffered from discrimination, poverty, and a lack of basic services that every human being should have democrat representatives. Our state and city must provide solutions to the problems that cause this violence – and reforming the Bail Laws letting criminals run free is not a solution. The unfounded attacks on these and other reforms to the judicial system do nothing more than respond with fear to our current crisis highlight commie lib failure. At its core, we must understand that violence is a health and social problem crime problem. The facts do not lie: on average 80 20 percent of people released under the new Bail Laws have no repeated incidents with the police during the time they wait for their cases to be resolved in court. Moreover, only 2 percent of these cases were re-arrested (i.e. - were caught) for violent crimes while waiting for their day in court. Additionally, the weapons with which violent crimes are committed do not originate from this state and, for the most part, are not manufactured here because we've chased away manufacturing from NY). They are brought from other states, and as legislators, it is our duty to work together with elected officials from other states to create stronger laws protect criminals and punish the law abiding tax payers.

I share Mayor Eric Adams’ genuine concern for public safety. However, the "Blueprint to End Gun Violence" focuses on the wrong approach to this issue. I am concerned that there are difficult culprits that we are unwilling to face (like criminals, for example). The culprits of this violence are social inequalities, the lack of resources for our people, and the lack of basic needs that we must guarantee as a society such as the right to health, decent employment, stable housing, quality education, and public services criminals. I can agree with Mayor Adams that we need timely solutions to these problems but I must insist that this is a problem of social inequality that has its roots in the health of our people and how we have failed to provide them with the tools they need for a better life removing people from society who repeatedly demonstrate that they are incapable of peacefully coexisting with their fellow citizens.

###

 

[Uninformed and Compliant]

 

[Dr. Evil]

 

[Dr. Evil]

I actually had to go to the old place and do a search of what I wrote there. Here are my thoughts:

In life, words mean a great deal. Words are very powerful and the words we choose can significantly change the meaning of conversation and dialogue. Although some may consider it semantics, it is important to make this distinction. Custodial engineer or sanitation engineer sound very different than janitor or garbage man, and can change the whole tone of a discussion.

When was the last time you heard of someone killed by a drunk driver being called "alcohol violence" or "car violence"? When was the last time you heard of a stabbing referred to as "knife violence"? When was the last time you heard of a bombing killing innocent people described as "bomb violence"? I find it interesting that in those situations we blame the driver, attacker and bomber, not the instrument they used to harm others. Alcohol, cars, knives and bombs are nothing more than tools or things. They are inanimate objects. We don't make them into entities. Why isn't that done with guns also? Why do we blame the gun and not the person who shot the gun? The reason is very evident to me.

It is used this way by those who have an agenda, by those who have fear, those misguided and ignorant. It is done to accomplish a goal. That goal is making society so afraid of firearms that people will stop at nothing to get rid of them. All of them. It perpetuates the myth that guns are solely used to do harm without any ability to protect and do good. It is used by those who want to "feel safe", even though nobody is owed safety. Safety is not a birth right, only life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are. Don't get me wrong, I am all for people feeling safe and secure. In fact, that is why I believe in the ability for a law abiding citizen to own firearms and do so myself. Unfortunately there are those who feel the need to take away my right so they can feel "safe", when the real root of the problem is their fear. If someone chooses not to own a firearm, they have that right. They just don't have the right to make me defenseless so they can feel "safer".

Lets now look at the word "weapon". Can a hammer become a weapon? How about your fist? Any object has the ability to turn into a "weapon". We don't however refer to most objects as "weapons". You don't normally refer to something as anything other than what it is. Can a hammer build something? A hammers main purpose is to drive a nail. Can your hands create something useful? Well, like it or not, a firearm is designed to do something and that something is shoot. The purpose you use it for is a whole other story. Since a firearm can be used to protect and for sport, it shouldn't casually be referred to as something that only has the intention of doing harm, a weapon. Again, it can be with bad intent, but it is the intent or individual that makes the distinction, not the firearm.

Lets also take the term "illegal gun". When it comes down to it, there is also no such thing. Here we go with semantics again. Someone who has a gun that shouldn't is either an illegal (gun) owner, a person who has a gun illegally, or a person who illegally owns a gun. The gun itself isn't "illegal" because it is just what it is, a gun. Nothing more, nothing less. Don't misunderstand or misrepresent what I am saying here. Nobody is saying that a gun in the hands of a bad or stupid person doesn't have the ability to lead to a violent outcome, but the person is the reason. The individual would be the violent factor, not the gun.

To sum things up, in order for there to be "gun violence", the gun needs to get up, get dressed, load itself and leave the building to cause death and destruction on its own. Guns have no more of an ability to become "violent" than any other tool or inanimate object. Why not "human" or "people violence"? By using the terms like "gun violence", "illegal gun", etc., we make the mistake of making the gun responsible instead of the person using it, just as those who want to take our rights away would want. Please watch the words you use and correct others when they use them.

 

[FP1201]

I believe a Fifth Grader could pick and rip apart his statement, but it's pointless to do so as it's Preaching to the Choir here, and falling on deaf ears there. I would encourage each of you to read and digest every word and not take it at Par as the ramblings of a lackluster Politician.

Did you ever stop and wonder why Hitler and the Nazi Party rose to such prominence that people a hundred years later either praise the Plans or Detest them? There is a hidden truth that no one dare speak of for fear of social retribution.

 

[FP1201]

I actually had to go to the old place and do a search of what I wrote there. Here are my thoughts:

In life, words mean a great deal. Words are very powerful and the words we choose can significantly change the meaning of conversation and dialogue. Although some may consider it semantics, it is important to make this distinction. Custodial engineer or sanitation engineer sound very different than janitor or garbage man, and can change the whole tone of a discussion.

When was the last time you heard of someone killed by a drunk driver being called "alcohol violence" or "car violence"? When was the last time you heard of a stabbing referred to as "knife violence"? When was the last time you heard of a bombing killing innocent people described as "bomb violence"? I find it interesting that in those situations we blame the driver, attacker and bomber, not the instrument they used to harm others. Alcohol, cars, knives and bombs are nothing more than tools or things. They are inanimate objects. We don't make them into entities. Why isn't that done with guns also? Why do we blame the gun and not the person who shot the gun? The reason is very evident to me.

It is used this way by those who have an agenda, by those who have fear, those misguided and ignorant. It is done to accomplish a goal. That goal is making society so afraid of firearms that people will stop at nothing to get rid of them. All of them. It perpetuates the myth that guns are solely used to do harm without any ability to protect and do good. It is used by those who want to "feel safe", even though nobody is owed safety. Safety is not a birth right, only life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are. Don't get me wrong, I am all for people feeling safe and secure. In fact, that is why I believe in the ability for a law abiding citizen to own firearms and do so myself. Unfortunately there are those who feel the need to take away my right so they can feel "safe", when the real root of the problem is their fear. If someone chooses not to own a firearm, they have that right. They just don't have the right to make me defenseless so they can feel "safer".

Lets now look at the word "weapon". Can a hammer become a weapon? How about your fist? Any object has the ability to turn into a "weapon". We don't however refer to most objects as "weapons". You don't normally refer to something as anything other than what it is. Can a hammer build something? A hammers main purpose is to drive a nail. Can your hands create something useful? Well, like it or not, a firearm is designed to do something and that something is shoot. The purpose you use it for is a whole other story. Since a firearm can be used to protect and for sport, it shouldn't casually be referred to as something that only has the intention of doing harm, a weapon. Again, it can be with bad intent, but it is the intent or individual that makes the distinction, not the firearm.

Lets also take the term "illegal gun". When it comes down to it, there is also no such thing. Here we go with semantics again. Someone who has a gun that shouldn't is either an illegal (gun) owner, a person who has a gun illegally, or a person who illegally owns a gun. The gun itself isn't "illegal" because it is just what it is, a gun. Nothing more, nothing less. Don't misunderstand or misrepresent what I am saying here. Nobody is saying that a gun in the hands of a bad or stupid person doesn't have the ability to lead to a violent outcome, but the person is the reason. The individual would be the violent factor, not the gun.

To sum things up, in order for there to be "gun violence", the gun needs to get up, get dressed, load itself and leave the building to cause death and destruction on its own. Guns have no more of an ability to become "violent" than any other tool or inanimate object. Why not "human" or "people violence"? By using the terms like "gun violence", "illegal gun", etc., we make the mistake of making the gun responsible instead of the person using it, just as those who want to take our rights away would want. Please watch the words you use and correct others when they use them.

I'd like to expound with something simple, remember the old saying "God made man, Colt made them equal"?
Governments and its henchmen DO NOT want the common man their equal. Expand and expound if you desire, the premise remains incontrovertible.

 

[C3D]

From the same guy who sponsored bail reform, criminal disclosure, ending solitary confinement, licenses for illegal aliens, and early voting/no excuse absentee voting. And he was arrested for choking his wife but the charges were mysteriously dropped, although he was booted as chair of the NYS Assembly Crime Victims, Crime and Correction Committee. Domestic violence charges against NY Sen. Luis Sepulveda dropped