We know gun control doesn't work but...


PDA






pdowg881
June 14, 2007, 09:01 PM
We all know "gun control" and all these laws are ineffective and meaningless to a criminal, and we talk about it often. My question is this: Is there a way to take a gun out of the hands of people that use them purely for evil and harm without disobeying the second ammendment, or is any attempt to take firearms out of the hands of anyone regardless of what they have done with them unconstitutional (shall not be infringed means exactly what it says)?

I really don't know how to word the question but I just see any attempt to take firearms away from anyone unconstitutional, but since we complain about gun control, then what are YOUR solutions?

I kind of see the whole an armed society is a polite society as a good solution. Arm every good guy we can. What kind of crook is going to try to rob you of 20$ when there's a good chance he's gonna get shot for it. Rapists would think twice about preying on a physically weaker target when there's an excellent chance that target has effective means of fighting back. Criminals want easy and quick means to accomplish their goals. They panic pretty quick when the tables are turned.

Edit: After rereading my question this seems an easier way to phrase it: Since taking weapons from people won't stop violence and is unconstitutional, what is the real solution?

If you enjoyed reading about "We know gun control doesn't work but..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Kael
June 14, 2007, 09:33 PM
Respectfully, I think the question is invalid.
how do we keep knives, sticks, chains, gasoline, etc out of the hands of criminals?

I think the question should be, how can we eliminate violent criminals from our society, not focus on the tools they use. Frankly I don't think that one will ever be answered.

I completely agree with your conclusion, however. :)

Henry Bowman
June 14, 2007, 09:42 PM
Is there a way to take a gun out of the hands of people that use them purely for evil and harm without disobeying the second ammendmentInprison them.

cuervo
June 14, 2007, 09:43 PM
Guns are taken out of the hands of evil people when they go to prison. Upon exiting prison, all of their rights should be restored.

I think the founding fathers assumed that there would always be more good people with guns than bad and that would be enough to deter habitual crime. If someone committed a large number of crimes, the odds of being shot would rise quickly.

Now, everyone's been conditioned to call the police rather than confront the evil. This has been mostly due to politicians wanting more power so promising safety that they can't deliver. When someone does confront evil, he will likely be prosecuted by those same politicians as examples for others not to do the same.

hugh damright
June 14, 2007, 10:11 PM
If some misuses firearms, commits acts of violence, armed robbery, murder, or anything of that nature, and their RKBA is infringed, then I don't see how that infringes upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms nor do I see how it violates the Second Amendment.

It seems rather simplistic to say that everyone who has their RKBA infringed by law should be imprisoned ... just how many people are restricted, and just how many more prisons would we have to build, and why would you want to imprison a bunch of people who have served their sentences?

heypete
June 14, 2007, 10:12 PM
I believe the late Jeff Cooper said it best:
The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles.

If a criminal commits a crime, they should face justice in the form of a fair and speedy trial, a neutral judge, a neutral jury of their peers, and so forth. If convicted, they should be sentenced to a punishment in line with the severity of their crime. Upon release, they should have their rights fully restored.

If a criminal commits a crime that threatens great bodily injury or death to their victims or bystanders, and said victims or bystanders use force (including deadly force) to stop the threat, that's just the natural way of things.

There's not really any way, short of having a Minority Report-style "Precrime" police, of stopping people from committing crimes before they act.

JoseM
June 14, 2007, 10:38 PM
If you're a felon or were one, I do not believe you should get the right to own a firearm immediately upon release. That's just irresponsible to even think that. If a felon is out and keeps clean (i.e. proves himself trustworthy again), then his rights should be restored...but if you do the crime, then you loose the right to defend yourself upon release. Yes, this will suck for the few (I believe) that actually have changed their lives, but overall, this would be keeping guns out of the bad guys hands.

oobray
June 14, 2007, 10:42 PM
Improve the family. That's the only solution. Stop the increasing reliance children have on "the state" in order to raise them, and increasing the amount of emphasis placed on doing things right (i.e getting an education/good job and earning a living) rather than promoting wealth by any means possible.
I don't care how good of a criminal justice, education or "extracaricular" activies system is... It will NEVER replace the influence of a good moral nuclear family. With a father figure and mother figure!
That's the only solution. And this will never be reached.

Elza
June 14, 2007, 10:45 PM
There certainly are ways to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Unfortunately, none that I can think of can be fairly applied save one; keep the criminals in prison where they belong. Our ‘revolving door’ prisons are nothing more than a sick joke.

Keeping felons from getting guns through legitimate sources sounds good, but it doesn’t work. If a convicted felon wants a gun there a multitude of places where they can be acquired. Now, say a person is convicted of vehicular manslaughter and does time in prison. Said person if forever banned from owning a gun. Why? He didn’t commit a premeditated crime. He should be held accountable for his actions certainly. But once his debt is paid does he pose a threat to society by owning a gun? No more than I or anyone else.

Someone convicted of armed robbery or murder can’t legally have one either. Well and good as this person has shown that they are not responsible enough to have one, right? Well, what if some kid is out with his buddies and one of them sticks up a convenience store. Is he responsible? Granted he will do time for being part of the criminal act. Frankly, he should have been more discerning in his choice of friends. Does lack of judgment mean he is a lifelong criminal? If so, I submit that we should all be locked up. Why should he be punished for the rest of his life for a lapse of judgment?

Now, on the flip side, say he knowingly and willingly takes part in the crime. Does this make him a criminal? In my view it does. Will a felony conviction keep him from acquiring a gun in the future? Hardly!

The powers-that-be want a ‘one size fits all’ answer to the problem of criminals with guns. A nice utopian thought but it simply doesn’t work. Personally, I feel that it goes back to the whole concept of incarceration. First and foremost, make a prison a prison, not a country club. Make the first conviction harsh enough to sting but not overly harsh so as to insure that the person convicted is turned into a career criminal. (Speaking of utopia, my previous thought would be difficult to judge and implement to say the least!) Make the second so miserable that they may well decide that they don’t want to return. Third time and they never see daylight again. This is said in relation to the crime committed. Some deserve a needle in the arm the first time around.

But the simple fact of “felony = no guns for life’ is grossly unfair to say the very least. And on top of that, it does absolutely nothing to stop crime.

Juna
June 14, 2007, 10:45 PM
Since taking weapons from people won't stop violence and is unconstitutional, what is the real solution?

Remove barriers that currently prohibit many law-abiding citizens from arming themselves.

Murder and violence are already illegal (and always have been), yet they have always happened--long before guns were invented. Moreover, passing stricter gun control laws only affects those who abide by the law--i.e. law-abiding citizens. Did Prohibition work? No. Is the "War on Drugs" working? No. Kids have access to drugs in literally every school in the country, yet they're illegal. Clearly, passing new laws banning inanimate objects has NEVER worked, and it will not work with guns.

The implication that limiting "easy access to guns" (as determined by people who have never tried to buy a firearm) will help anything is a fallacy because it will only further limit the access of the law-abiding citizens to firearms. Criminals already have access to firearms (and drugs, etc.) when they shouldn't be able to, according to the law.

You cannot control the actions of criminals except to defend yourself, but people don't like the thought that they (or their government) can't control criminals. They want to believe that laws will stop criminals despite the fact that what makes one a criminal is the fact that they do not obey the law. There is a total void of logic in that line of thinking. It's mere blissful denial and lack of thought processing.

People believe anything politicians claim is "commonsense legislation," no matter how ludicrous and factually lacking it may be. In fact, when a politician claims anything is "commonsense legislation," that is a HUGE red flag to me that it's based on complete ignorance (i.e. "commonsense") with no factual basis and no regard for our rights.

Just my $.02

oobray
June 14, 2007, 10:49 PM
Improve the family. That's the only solution. Stop the increasing reliance children have on "the state" in order to raise them, and increasing the amount of emphasis placed on doing things right (i.e getting an education/good job and earning a living) rather than promoting wealth by any means possible.
I don't care how good of a criminal justice, education or "extracaricular" activies system is... It will NEVER replace the influence of a good moral nuclear family. With a father figure and mother figure!
That's the only solution. And this will never be reached.

pdowg881
June 14, 2007, 11:20 PM
Sounds good so far. It seems like my question spurred some pretty good discussion. I often find myself saying why gun control doesn't work, but I have a lack of things to say about how to actually decrease crime and violence.

TCB in TN
June 15, 2007, 12:14 AM
If you're a felon or were one, I do not believe you should get the right to own a firearm immediately upon release. That's just irresponsible to even think that. If a felon is out and keeps clean (i.e. proves himself trustworthy again), then his rights should be restored...but if you do the crime, then you loose the right to defend yourself upon release. Yes, this will suck for the few (I believe) that actually have changed their lives, but overall, this would be keeping guns out of the bad guys hands.

If you are a danger to society then you stay in jail. If you are safe to turn out then you should get your rights back.

Jim March
June 15, 2007, 12:32 AM
Here's the core problem:

Anything you do to make guns harder to get, you will reduce their availability.

The problem is, the reduction isn't "even". Ownership drops NOT according to what laws are on the books, but rather according to the "economic gain" the guns provide each owner.

The greater the economic gain for the owner, the more determined that owner will be to get and/or keep the gun.

Ordinary citizens don't gain a lot from their guns. Self defense once in a blue moon, yeah. Some fun shooting at paper. But it ain't a lot.

How much do criminals gain from their guns? A *lot*. The ability to intimidate. Self defense (questionable or otherwise) a lot more often. And outright robbery.

This is the issue: ALL gun control skews the balance of power away from the law abiding citizenry and towards the criminal element.

ALL gun control. Period, full stop.

ptmmatssc
June 15, 2007, 07:10 AM
If you're a felon or were one, I do not believe you should get the right to own a firearm immediately upon release. That's just irresponsible to even think that. If a felon is out and keeps clean (i.e. proves himself trustworthy again), then his rights should be restored...but if you do the crime, then you loose the right to defend yourself upon release. Yes, this will suck for the few (I believe) that actually have changed their lives, but overall, this would be keeping guns out of the bad guys hands.

So , non violent felons( tax evaders, dope growers, spammers, etc) should not get their 2A rights back upon release , even though their crimes were non violent and had nothing to do with weapons? Should we also not give them back the their other inalienable rights also , or just that particular one?

To me , serving time is like paying a debt . Once served , you should be started back at square one . Stop giving short sentences to violent criminals and giving them early releases . Stop putting people in jail that are not doing harm to anyone but themselves , thereby freeing up the space for the hard cases .

ptmmatssc
June 15, 2007, 07:28 AM
Improve the family. That's the only solution. Stop the increasing reliance children have on "the state" in order to raise them, and increasing the amount of emphasis placed on doing things right (i.e getting an education/good job and earning a living) rather than promoting wealth by any means possible.
I don't care how good of a criminal justice, education or "extracurricular" activities system is... It will NEVER replace the influence of a good moral nuclear family. With a father figure and mother figure!
That's the only solution. And this will never be reached.

I agree with stopping the reliance on the state/fed gov for "assistance' . But having "a father figure and mother figure!" is not always conducive to a good child . I was raised by a single father , yet I have a clean record , an FFL , concealed permit , and a good job . my cousin on the other hand , brought up in a god fearing 2 parent household , is a felon who can't seem to keep a job or stay out of jail .

There is so much that can dictate whether a person is/becomes "bad" than just saying "good moral nuclear family" is the cure . Environment , mental health, education, etc etc are all also part of what dictates how a person will turn out .

Glockman17366
June 15, 2007, 07:41 AM
Proactively (before a crime is committed)? NO!
No...because as much as we may have issues with folks who look like criminals, they're not criminals...not until a crime is committed.

Steve499
June 15, 2007, 08:32 AM
The fading away of the concept of consequences, in my opinion, is responsibile for a large portion of criminality.

I wonder how effective the efforts of even good parents can be when every other segment of our society seems to be unable to show that consequences for bad behavior will follow that bad behavior. When you have otherwise good parents who can't seem to discipline their children, those children sure aren't going to get it anywhere else! The schools used to do it. Not anymore.

We teach our kids the word "hot" when they are very small. We do that for good reason and the disregarding by the child of our "hot" warning always, every time, results in the child getting a life lesson. No kid that I know of, ADHD, ADD, whatever, fails to get it pretty darn quick. How effective would it be if almost none of the things we said were hot actually were, and the child found that out?

No law, enforced arbitrarily if at all, will prevent someone from doing something he really wants to do. The only way to stop violence is by meeting it early and often with even more violence. Eventually those inclined to be violent will either become less inclined, or leave the building!

Steve

Deanimator
June 15, 2007, 08:45 AM
Is there a way to take a gun out of the hands of people that use them purely for evil and harm without disobeying the second ammendment,
Easy as pie. Shoot them to death while they're in the commission of a violent crime. Worked perfectly here in NE Ohio with Arthur Buford.

Sistema1927
June 15, 2007, 10:05 AM
Criminal control, not gun control.

Violent felons should be removed from the gene pool. Executed murderers and rapists have a 0% recidivism rate.

Unfortunately, this is too radical for our sensitive society.

glummer
June 15, 2007, 10:49 AM
Ordinary citizens don't gain a lot from their guns. Self defense once in a blue moon, yeah. Some fun shooting at paper. But it ain't a lot.

How much do criminals gain from their guns? A *lot*. The ability to intimidate. Self defense (questionable or otherwise) a lot more often. And outright robbery.

This is the issue: ALL gun control skews the balance of power away from the law abiding citizenry and towards the criminal element.

And that’s true, even if it were to succeed at eliminating guns altogether. Criminals, since they control when, where, and how crimes occur, almost always have a great advantage over their victims.
Victims are ALWAYS in danger during a violent crime; criminals seldom are, by design.
Guns alter that equation drastically, creating enormous potential danger for the attacker that does not exist without guns.
In a world with no guns, the little old lady being mugged by the 200lb disaffected urban youth is in terrible danger; the mugger is almost totally safe.
In a world WITH guns, even if the mugger has one too, he may still be in mortal danger from that same little old lady. And that will usually reduce the thug's motivation rather strongly.

To me , serving time is like paying a debt

Someday I’d like to know where that idea originated in the first place – it is totally silly when you look at it realistically.
Criminals virtually NEVER pay their debts to anyone.
Have you ever heard of a victim being compensated by a violent criminal?
Has any prisoner you have ever known of paid back the costs of catching him, trying him, and keeping him incarcerated?

ZeSpectre
June 15, 2007, 11:41 AM
I'm always making this point.

Someone heads out with criminal intent. You take away their chosen tool (gun, knife, etc.) or try to prevent access to it. The criminal is still in circulation and goes and gets another tool or evades the prevention process and proceeds with the origional plan (over and over and over).

Someone heads out with criminal intent. Once they have committed a crime you remove them from circulation. They have no opportunity for further action.

FOCUS ON THE CRIMINALS NOT THE TOOLS

Elza
June 15, 2007, 12:00 PM
ZeSpectre: Someone heads out with criminal intent. Once they have committed a crime you remove them from circulation. They have no opportunity for further action.Precisely!

I’ve read in various places where 80% of crime is committed by repeat offenders. I realize that this is a somewhat simplistic approach. However, isn’t it a logical assumption that keeping the criminals in prison would reduce our crime level by 80%? :scrutiny:

ZeSpectre
June 15, 2007, 12:02 PM
yeah, I often wonder what happened to "three strikes".

ptmmatssc
June 15, 2007, 12:20 PM
Someday I’d like to know where that idea originated in the first place – it is totally silly when you look at it realistically.
Criminals virtually NEVER pay their debts to anyone.
Have you ever heard of a victim being compensated by a violent criminal?
Has any prisoner you have ever known of paid back the costs of catching him, trying him, and keeping him incarcerated?

Actually , happens quite often . right now in my state , a woman who stole $100000 while working for a town has already paid back a big chunk by selling her house . She'll spend time in jail , then once out , has to continue to pay back what she stole .

Now violent crimes (murder , rape , etc ) cannot be "paid back" per se , but what are murderers and rapist doing getting out of jail in the first place ?

Now , as far as tax payer dollars for inmate upkeep . Well, put em to work "earning" their 3 hots and a cot instead of giving them a gym and TV room .

glummer
June 15, 2007, 12:32 PM
Actually , happens quite often . right now in my state , a woman who stole $100000 while working for a town has already paid back a big chunk by selling her house . She'll spend time in jail , then once out , has to continue to pay back what she stole . That happens around here, too. Always seems to be embezzlers, particularly gov’t employees, for some reason. But most people serving time are not embezzlers.
Now violent crimes (murder , rape , etc ) cannot be "paid back" per se , but what are murderers and rapist doing getting out of jail in the first place ?
You want life sentences for rape, or assault? Who is going to pay for it? Not the criminals, that’s for sure.

Now , as far as tax payer dollars for inmate upkeep . Well, put em to work "earning" their 3 hots and a cot instead of giving them a gym and TV room .

Sounds good to me, if you can make it work.

Zundfolge
June 15, 2007, 12:41 PM
I think the legal concept we're talking about here is called Prior Restraint.

The idea being that government steps in and restricts your non-criminal behavior because you either fit a predetermined profile of a would-be or they (government) fear that [I]anyone who engages in this non-criminal behavior is just a step away from the criminal behavior.

A perfect example is gun control laws that say if you are part of a certain subclass of citizenry (felons, wife beaters, drug addicts, etc) you are not allowed to posses a firearm (an otherwise legal endeavor) because you MIGHT be more likely than someone else to do something bad with it.

In my not so humble opinion, the entire concept of Prior Restraint has no place in a free society.

You should punish people for what they DO, not what they MIGHT DO. Any attempt at Prior Restraint is a step toward a police state.

ptmmatssc
June 15, 2007, 01:06 PM
Zundfolge , I agree . My dad happens to be a felon which prohibits him from owning firearms and even prevents him from visiting family in canada.He has zero violent offenses on his record and was deemed no threat and sent to a minimum security fed pen . So then why is he denied his RKBA now that he's out?

A perfect example is gun control laws that say if you are part of a certain subclass of citizenry (felons, wife beaters, drug addicts, etc) you are not allowed to posses a firearm (an otherwise legal endeavor) because you MIGHT be more likely than someone else to do something bad with it.


Funny how things that the gov deem "illegal" (drug use etc) prevent firearm ownership , yet , you can be popping prescription drugs and drinking a 1/2 gallon of hooch a day and that's just dandy . I've yet to come across a single stoner that was a "violent" person (other then to a bag of doritos) , yet have seen more drunks taking swings at the drop of a hat . But the drunk can own a gun while the stoner has to suffice with a pointy stick .


You should punish people for what they DO, not what they MIGHT DO. Any attempt at Prior Restraint is a step toward a police state.

yup

Owen Sparks
June 15, 2007, 01:21 PM
Conceder this. If you were in at a public event like a concert, football game or in a bar and caused trouble you would expect be forcibly ejected from the premises.

Why not deport convicted violent felons to some obscure third world destination AFTER they have done their time? The US only covers about five percent of the earths surface so this would be immanently doable. Especially if taking former US criminals was contingent on receiving more foreign aid.

Just a thought, OS

glummer
June 15, 2007, 02:14 PM
In my not so humble opinion, the entire concept of Prior Restraint has no place in a free society.

You should punish people for what they DO, not what they MIGHT DO. Any attempt at Prior Restraint is a step toward a police state.

Generally, I agree with you, but I think you harm your argument by pushing it to extremes, with “entire concept” and “(a)ny attempt”. After all, if you shoot a robber who is threatening you with a weapon, aren’t you acting on the basis of what he MIGHT do? You don’t have to wait until he DOES hurt you, do you?
I’d suggest it’s more a matter of the weight of the evidence for future harm. “Possible”, or “conceivable”, or even “very likely” is not good enough – to be tolerable in a free society, you need something closer to “beyond a reasonable doubt.” And something like well-established due-process procedures for defining/appealing the restrictions.

ServiceSoon
June 15, 2007, 08:21 PM
Although your question is a noble one I don’t think this is a feasible scenario because predetermining who is going to commit a crime (based on past criminal records) goes against America’s key criminal code, which is presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

If somebody commits a crime that justifies losing their right to bear arms, then they shouldn't be allowed in public. They belong in jail.

Does that make sense to anybody else?

If you enjoyed reading about "We know gun control doesn't work but..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!