If gun control were up to you!


PDA






RM
July 14, 2003, 11:20 AM
If you had complete authority to decide any and all gun control laws in the United States, what would you do? Would you keep any gun control laws at all? If so which ones? What issues would you leave up to states to decide? And what do you think the NRA would do if they were in this same position?

If you enjoyed reading about "If gun control were up to you!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Monkeyleg
July 14, 2003, 07:08 PM
No gun laws at all. If you commit a crime with a gun, knife, bat, paperweight, ballpoint pen, your fists or your bad breath, you do the time.

Marko Kloos
July 14, 2003, 07:14 PM
If gun control were up to me...

...there would be no regulation, taxation, registration, or any other infringement of gun ownership. Every man, woman, and responsible child could walk into a gun store, hardware store, Gats-R-Us, or gas station, and buy any pistol, shotgun, buzz gun, belt-fed weapon, or grenade launcher of their choice, with no paperwork and no questions asked other than" "Will that be cash or charge?"

The corollary is that anyone caught committing a violent crime with their new hardware will be removed from society post haste.

Correia
July 14, 2003, 07:22 PM
I would require a 5 day "cooling off" period before you could buy a 155mm Atomic Howitzer. Anything below that is good to go.

:D

alan
July 14, 2003, 07:54 PM
The commission of a crime involving any firearm warrants capitol punishment. Aside from that, do not bother the law abiding, those who do harm to nobody.

Hkmp5sd
July 14, 2003, 07:55 PM
You can have anything you want...

Commit a crime using any weapon, 10 years in prison, no parole.

Injure someone in a crime with any weapon, 20 years in prison, no parole.

Kill someone in a crime with any weapon, death, to be carried out not more than 1 year from date of conviction.

sm
July 14, 2003, 08:01 PM
What Marko said!!

spacemanspiff
July 14, 2003, 08:58 PM
i'd eliminate the 4473's. ALL of them. all gunstores, pawnships, etc would be directed to burn all their records.

i'd reorganize the ATFE so that they only regulate Alcohol, Tobacco, Liberals. we'll call them, the ATL.

each gun sale would include two free magazines and 250 rounds of free ammo. gunstores that do not comply will be fined $5000. those who report the non-complyers will be given a free gun of their choice, up to the purchase price of the firearm they bought and were not offered the free magazines/ammo.

the 'felony' system would be revamped and non-violent felonies as they now exist would be renamed "boo-boos". example, john q. taxfrauder would be guilty of a "boo-boo" and would be sentenced to pay back that which he gained by fraud x4.
i second hkmp5sd's list of crimes and punishments.
those who do NOT injure/maim/kill with a weapon, after their sentence is over, will have their case reviewed. depending on their conduct in prison, their right to bear arms may be reinstated, but a second conviction will result in a sentence of 20 yrs, no parole, and no chance of regaining their 2nd amendment rights.

Ian
July 14, 2003, 09:15 PM
I'd simply drop all weapons ownership/carry regulation completely and immediately release from prison any person incarcerated for weapons violations. I would sell off all assets of the ATF (I don't care for their alcohol or tobacco regulation work either) and use that money for restitution to those formerly imprisoned on weapons charges.

Standing Wolf
July 14, 2003, 09:34 PM
I believe I'd just stick with the Second Amendment.

tyme
July 14, 2003, 10:14 PM
$1000/month citizenship tax stamp for anyone over 18 who is not capable of passing some rudimentary course of fire or who does not own a firearm.

P95Carry
July 14, 2003, 10:23 PM
The 2nd ..... and what Monkeyleg sez!

4v50 Gary
July 14, 2003, 10:46 PM
I'd tell the ATF to concentrate their enforcement efforts against the gang-bangers and leave the lawful gun community alone.

As for laws, repeal of the Assault Weapon Ban, rescind the ban against new full autos for civilians, tort reform to get rid of those junk lawsuits, restore the old days when you could mail order stuff. :)

TimH
July 14, 2003, 11:33 PM
OK I'm gonna get raked over the coals :rolleyes:
I really think that the background check isn't a bad thing
Personally I think that if you do something really bad they should tatoo your forehead & implant some sort of chip so the backgrund checks wouldn't be needed

Duncan Idaho
July 14, 2003, 11:59 PM
What Hkmp5sd said.

Diesle
July 15, 2003, 12:10 AM
National CCW and ownership protection applied across all states. States expressly forbidden to circumvent any existing national firearms law. Supreme court expressly forbidden from interpreting national law to lessen its effectiveness. How’s that for dreamin...?

- Convicted felons of violent crime to be banned from ownership or CCW for life.

- 20 hours of in class training on firearms usage and legal issues.

- 20 range training and certification.

- Any SMALL ARM that has been approved for police, guard or military use is to be made available to the general public.

- You must be an American Citizen to legally own or CCW

- You must be fluent in English

- Abolish B.S. lawsuits against gun manufacturers so they have equal opportunity in the free market.

Diesle

mercedesrules
July 15, 2003, 12:18 AM
(RM)If you had complete authority to decide any and all gun control laws in the United States, what would you do?

I wouldn't accept a job ruling others.

MR

alan
July 15, 2003, 12:31 AM
Tim:

If you consider the following to be being "raked over the coals", that is up to you, however with regference to your post, where you offered "OK I'm gonna get raked over the coals,I really think that the background check isn't a bad thing.Personally I think that if you do something really bad they should tatoo your forehead & implant some sort of chip so the backgrund checks wouldn't be needed", how do you feel re background checks when they are viewed against the following frames of reference.

1. The fact that people guilty of "summary offenses" parking trickets and such, were denmied the most basic of civil rights.

2. The fact that government agencies, The FBI being one such, respecting their operation pof the backgro8und check, have clearly acted in a manner that is violative of the law, as written. Their maintaining of this so-called "audit log", violates the law. Also their plan to "transfer" illegally created data base is by itself, violative of existing federal law.

Absent background checks, no such violations would have taken place, and might I also point out that in Point of Contact jurisdictions, the state police haven't been above prohibited record keeping either, Pennsylvania being an example of one such locale.

Ian
July 15, 2003, 02:04 AM
mercedesrules - To play devil's advocate here, he never said it was job, per se, just that you had the authority to decide these laws. :)

Moparmike
July 15, 2003, 04:10 AM
I third hkmp5sd's rules.

[dons flame suit]

However, I would include the following: 5 day wait and background check for anything AP or HE of more than 10 rounds, no internet sales of AP or HE. I am sorry, but who really needs that kind of stuff, and in more than 10 rounds? I can see needs, but there is only so much call for that sort.

A CCW license would only be necessary for being on school grounds for good reasons, like:

1. You work there.
2. You take a child there.
3. You attend (over 18).

Other times, if you dont have that CCW for school, you get a warning. 5 warnings in a year, and its a $500 fine. Each other one would be $100. Being on the roads on that campus would not be a punishable offense. This license would be a flat $50 and the wait would be 30 days.

I really dont think that artillery would be a good idea to let average citizens have. Military, NG, hell even militia, fine. But if someone wants to commit a murder with a Howitzer, tehn the LEO's would have one hell of a time figuring out what killed the person, and where it came from after it hit. The forensics on that give me a headache.

Well, that is all for the moment.

Powderman
July 15, 2003, 04:29 AM
No nukes, no bioweapons, no chemical weapons.

Other than that, go for it.

Handguns? Of course.
Rifles, shotguns? Why not?
Full auto? Buy yourself a Dillon to feed it.
Belt fed? How bout a Camdex?
Crew served, big bore, howitzers, cannon? Don't hit anyone with the shrapnel fan, and no firing over houses. Tain't mannerly.

Finally, a Constitutional convention, to write this:

"The right of the citizens of the United States to own, possess, and manufacture firearms shall not be diminished or abridged, either by judicial process or public opinion."

twoblink
July 15, 2003, 06:21 AM
Age limit, (whereever you like to draw the line called "adult") as far as ownership..

Also, a quick check that you are not on America's most wanted list.

Another check to see if you are a runaway from the loony bin.

That's about it..

erikm
July 15, 2003, 08:21 AM
All right, I'll bite :) This includes some of how I would set things up. Note that it includes some things not done today (I'm partial to trained weapons ownership, dammit).

1) Release anyone held only for technical gun law violations (paperwork goofs and the like), gun running, illegally manufacturing firearms or for 'illegal' conversions (full auto, silencers, etc).

2) Eliminate all gun laws with the exception of the 2nd Ammendment. Enact one law (at federal level) banning private ownership of NBC weapons, with the exception of nuclear devices used for spacecraft deep space propulsion. Disband the ATF and destroy all government mandated gun records.

3) Push for tort reform.

4) Push for prison system reform. One person per prison/jail cell, no exceptions.

5) Classify firearms (including guided missiles4) as hand gun, long gun, automatic hand gun, automatic long gun, heavy, special ammunition2 and special weapon3. Allow firms and police agencies to offer training and certification in a weapons class (or in the case of special weapons class, a particular type) to the public. Training to include backgrounds in safe and proper storage, maintainance and use. Certification is valid for 5 years.

6) There will be a national registry of prohibited persons, which classes they are prohibited from and when a prohibition runs out. Any person may request a certified extract of his prohibition record. Such a certification is valid 1 year.

7) Ownership:
Anyone over 18 may own a weapon he has a class or type certification for. Buying requires a prohibition certification for the class. Use of weaponry without certification is permitted under direct personal supervision from a certified person, who is then jointly legally liable for the user's action1. Owning a firearm while not certified is a misdemeanor, punishable by the confiscation and sale of the weapon. The prohibited owner is fined half the proceeds.

8) Convict prohibitions:
Note that multiple prohibitions may run concurrently. In that case the tightest restriction counts.
Murder: no weapons for life (and likely a life sentence at hard labor).
Felony(violence) convict: may own long guns 15 years after release with further clean record. No other weapons permitted for life.
Felony(sex) convict: may own long guns and hand guns 10 years after release with further clean record. No other weapons permitted for life.
Misdemeanor(violence) convict: May not own weapons until 10 years after release with further clean record. No special ammunition or special weapons until 10 years after release with clean record.
Misdemeanor(sex) convict: May not own weapons until 5 years after release with further clean record. No special ammunition or special weapons until 10 years after release with clean record.
Buying a firearm while prohibited it is a felony of violence. Owning a firearm while prohibited is a misdemeanor, punishable by the confiscation of the weapon, plus 6 months in prison (cumulative) per repeat offence.

9) Concealed carry:
Anyone over 21 who is certified for a handgun may carry a concealed handgun at any time, with the exception of in or on a courtroom in session, police station, jail or prison. Permission to carry in these locations may be granted by the person in charge.

1) Yes, Junior can shoot daddy's machine gun while sitting in daddy's lap.
2) This class is for explosive, firestarter or other 'warhead' ammunition for weapons in other classes. Tracers are not included in this class. The owner must get class or type certification for the firing weapon as well.
3) This includes things like artillery
4) Firing solid-tipped ATGMs or handheld SAMs at targets sounds like fun.

Cheers,
ErikM :evil:

Zeke Menuar
July 15, 2003, 10:25 AM
The background check is a good thing, providing the jurisdiction has the money to enforce it.

Establish a nationwide gun court for the purpose of prosecuting crimes committed using firearms. No plea bargining here. Minimum 10 years for any felony firearms crime.

When a person buys a handgun for "protection" that person should be given a certificate for a free NRA class that teaches all about the laws regarding use of deadly force and self defense in their particular state. I would not go as far as to make it a law, but neophytes need to know when they can and cannot shoot the bad guy.

Tax Credits for gun safe purchases.

Nationwide CCW license

That's all I can think of now.


ZM

OF
July 15, 2003, 02:51 PM
I would begin repealing all firearms legislation immediately, but it would be done in stages over the course of several years. At the end of this gradual roll-back period the full rights of the militia would be restored to their original state.

No background checks, no training requirements, no tests, no forms, no databases. no 'enhanced penalties' for crimes with a gun, no special 'gun courts'. Just people, their tools and their own free will.

- Gabe

GregoryTech
July 15, 2003, 03:05 PM
I'd make the rules identical for those of any other tool, including bats, hammers, screwdrivers, and scisors; and the punishments for using it in the commission of a crime the same as for using any of the other listed tools as a weapon. A firearm criminally used is no more evil than a screwdriver criminally used.

Too many of us have fallen for the hype. They're just guns people. Seriously, think about it. They are just guns. Tools. Metal and plastic. When violently used, they are no more and no less evil than a violently used dinner fork.

OF
July 15, 2003, 03:16 PM
Exactly. I don't understand the whole 'Project Exile' fascination...except in the light of the gun grabbers looking for another way to demonize firearms. I especially don't get it when it's gun owners and '2nd Amendment Supporters' touting that type of system. Is someone raped at gunpoint somehow more raped than if it had been knifepoint?

Legislation that asks for increased penalties for gun use as opposed to any other tool is anti-2nd Amendment and anti-freedom. Therefore it's anti-American.

- Gabe

mercedesrules
July 15, 2003, 03:22 PM
(Ian) mercedesrules - To play devil's advocate here, he never said it was job, per se, just that you had the authority to decide these laws.

Oh, you mean like a king, wizard, Harry Potter, or something? Well, then , "what you said", smartypants! ;)

I am against all gun control, period. We covered this in another recent thread.

MR

tyme
July 15, 2003, 06:07 PM
Registration/licensing sounds like a great idea to ensure that violent criminals are deterred from having/carrying firearms. Unfortunately it isn't.

The State cannot enforce those laws strictly enough to cut crime unless LEOs presume that people are carrying a restricted weapon and are guilty of a violation/infraction until they produce their papers or allow a pat-down.

If they're so dangerous (either the people or the tools), lock them all up, and we'll go from there.

Combat-wombat
July 15, 2003, 08:16 PM
I'm with Marko.

Matt1911
July 15, 2003, 08:27 PM
If I were king.....

"All persons are required to equipt them selves in a fitting fashion as to protect themselves AND others from violent crimmal behavoir"

Moparmike
July 15, 2003, 08:39 PM
"All persons are required to equipt them selves in a fitting fashion as to protect themselves AND others from violent crimmal behavoir" I am assuming that the '21' laws will be repealed? What about the people who cant afford a pistol? I cant afford even a makarov now with my current budget. I am not trying to be a troll, but I am merely asking about the proposed requirement's details.

Thanks,

WAGCEVP
July 15, 2003, 08:42 PM
ditto, Mokeyleg, gun control places blame on an lifeless inanimate object, it's all ready illegal to kill, rape steal,rob, murder, etc ad nauseum re: of the TOOL used.
if you do the crime you do the time, if you kill, you die!

Byron Quick
July 16, 2003, 07:12 AM
I'm with Marko...as usual.

Jesse H
July 18, 2003, 04:11 PM
Diesle said:

- You must be an American Citizen to legally own or CCW

I'd like to respectfully disagree. Before my family or I were naturalized 2 yrs ago, we all paid taxes and were just as, if not more patriotic than our neighbors. We were good members of the community, etc. I was a permanent resident for 23 years before the naturalization process finally went through.

So for 23 years I should be unarmed? Self defense is more than a constitutional right, but IMO, a God given right.

jade
July 18, 2003, 04:55 PM
if you defend yourself or others (regardless if you know them or not), whether you are on your property or not, you CANNOT be sued by the badguy or badguy's family for damages, medical bills, etc. if you are attacked, you have the right to defend yourself or others without fear of ANY legal action.

twoblink
July 18, 2003, 08:28 PM
Or we can forget the National CCW.. and just go Vermont style CCW nation wide :cool:

Zedicus
July 18, 2003, 11:52 PM
Hmm....Let's see....

No Restrictions on Ownership Except for a Minimum age for Unsupervised Shooting (Say around 16).
No Restrictions on How much ammo You can Own/Horde.
Compulsary Low Cost (if not free) Millitary Level Fireams Dissapline and Safety Training To be taught in school(to minimise the fearfull,paranoid loons and accedents).
No Parole & or Double Time if you use ANY weapon in ANY Crime.
Psycos that would go on a Killing Spree Shal be Removed from the Gene Pool.
Basic Safety Training for Visitors from Contrys where Firearms are Illegal (to prevent people from freaking at the sight of a gun).
Self Defence/Defence of Others/Innocents with Lethal Force Allowed and non Punishable.
No Indevidual State, County, District, Town or Building Spacific Laws that Differ or Infringe uppon National Firarms Rights/Laws.

That's about all I can think of right now....

90% of what I've listed is Based on 3 Major things that much of the world likes to forget about.
1: Safety, If People aren't affraid of guns and know how to act/react around them there will be fewer related incedents and fewer accedents if people know how to properly handle them from a young age.
Give the People the Proper Knowlege/Training and you will Kill any Fear and Paranoia.
2: Reducing Crime, It has been proven countless times that known areas of armed citizens deter crime better than any police force or army could.
Criminals are inherintly more concerned about ther own backside than risking there necks over a tv/vcr...(except some deranged psyco drug addicts.)
3: Stratigy, Who made a major part of the US war for independance a sucess? Answer = Joe Bloggs Down the road & his rifle.
IE: Well armed citizens are better than any army for homeland defence.
Why? they know the area, were to hide, how to get paces unseen/heard plus there is a LOT more of them.

antgriff
April 7, 2007, 02:50 AM
This is only a few ideas that would have to be instated.;)

1. EVERYONE that goes to schools in this country will have to attend, NO EXCEPTIONS, a year long firearms safety/tactical operation class (depending on what grade), from grade 2 to 12 and every college must require firearm safety and training classes as prerequisites for graduating college. (THIS SHOULD DRASTICALLY CUT THE ACCIDENTAL SHOOTINGS THAT HAPPEN BECAUSE OF CARELESSNESS AND STUPIDITY.)

2. Every law abiding citizen will be encouraged to carry concealed. There would be NO OFF-LIMITS FOR CARRYING. (THIS WILL REDUCE THE CRIME RATE.)

3. I fully believe in the "AN EYE FOR AN EYE," theory. So anyone committing a violent crime will be punished equal to the crime if not more harsh. There would be little to no need for prisons. For crimes of murder, there would be NO FORGIVENESS. The criminal dies, PERIOD. (THIS WILL REDUCE THE CRIME RATE AND RELIEVE THE TAXES LAW ABIDING CITIZENS PAY TO ALLOW CRIMINALS TO LIVE.)

4. The will be a task force in stated in every city, who's sole purpose is to eradicate GANGS of any size or type (including any terrorist cells, foreign or domestic) that pose physical harm to society. This group will have full rights to kill on sight. They will be held fully accountable for their actions at all times, because this group will be under surveillance at all times to insure no wrongful killings. These groups of people will have their identities fully protected. (THIS WILL WEED OUT THE OTHER TRASH THAT PLAGUES OUR COUNTRY.)

thedpp
April 7, 2007, 03:20 AM
I would eliminate any law that is against the 2nd that is all

Liberal Gun Nut
April 7, 2007, 05:12 AM
I'm fine with our current structure. I would, however, remove non-crew-served machine guns (ie, M16s, subguns) from the NFA and make them transferable by simple NICS check, like anything else. Oh I would also get rid of any reference to "sporting use", and would lift the various import prohibitions. I would also want shall-issue CCW in every state, and national reciprocity. And finally, there should be some more reasonable system for felons to restore their rights. Someone who got busted for being non-violent stupid 25 years ago, and has lead an unblemished life since then, should be able to get his rights back.

Ratzinger_p38
April 7, 2007, 05:52 AM
If I were in charge...hm.

1. The NFA would exist only for crew served/armor/anti tank guns. There are tanks and such on the list now. Removal for all small arms such M16s.
2. The CMP would sell surplus arms after a few years of being obsolete (say on their 25th year of service or something) (so liberals wont be up in arms that joe redneck has the latest m4 carbine at the same time as the army). So Vietnam era-M16s and M14s are for sale.
3. Mandatory gun training in schools (such as Vermont and a few other states have)
4. Dismantling of the ATF, except for the import/ffl guys, and sending all enforcement personal into their LEAs.(as lots of them could use the personel)
5. Loss of your 2nd amd. rights ONLY if you commit a violent felony, commit a crime while using a gun, have been commited in a loony bin. (this will catch me some flak) those are REPEAT domestic violence offenders (maybe a 3 strikes and youre out rule), have been caught illegally in the country, and temporary loss of rights if you are under a current order of protection for stalking.
6. The various unorganzied state militias are back under the command of the governor, with a sort of revival of the swiss style system (basically more like a weekend training camp for those who wish to do it, less picky than the 'national guard') - I am not comfortable at the current time with every man in the country having a gun, people are stupid and would ruin it really quick.


And in a perfect world (not totally serious)

sanctions against any nation that doesnt respect the right to bear arms (guess we're isolationist now then :))

mike101
April 7, 2007, 08:39 AM
"............the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be INFRINGED".

Although I was a little kid at the time, I remember what life was like before the assasinations in the '60s, when there was virtually no gun control. As I recall, people were not mowing eachother down in the streets. I'm not sure, but I would be willing to bet that ther was less violent crime, per capita, back then.

1911 guy
April 7, 2007, 09:07 AM
You over eighteen?
You're not spending grocery money on this, are you?
You realize that everybody else has one, too? You try to hurt someone they might stop you.
Do you know that committing a crime with this means going up the river for a very long time?
This check is good, right?

ScotZ
April 7, 2007, 09:35 AM
I would have mandatory gun safety and marksmanship taught in our public schools. All children would be taught the laws and have extremely severe consequenses for using a gun to commit a crime. Everyhome would have a gun (similar to Switzerland). After about 20 years of this. I think this country would be straightened out.:D

Reddbecca
April 7, 2007, 09:50 AM
Lemme get back to you on this one. I've got a list somewhere...

gego
April 7, 2007, 10:08 AM
No law regulating, limiting, taxing, restricting buying, selling, owning, carrying any weapon that the government has or could have except for nukes and biological weapons. If you can afford it, you can have it.

I would impose the death penalty for any elected or appointed government official proposing, voting for, or in any way attempting to infringe this right to be carried out by public hanging within one month of conviction (show it on tv).

Normal punishment for acts of aggression against others would apply, whether or not a weapon was involved.

Diesel man
April 7, 2007, 10:49 AM
I would make 18 the universal age to get a ccw and all weapons up to guided missiles.Anyone under 18 but 16 or 17 can buy any rifle or shotgun and can open carry the rifles and shotguns even pistol with parents permission but dont need parent permission to buy guns.
Anyone under 16 can own guns with parental permission and can take basic gun safety and training classes in school to be elgible for a year of free ammunition for all their guns they also need parent permission to buy guns.

All gun control laws removed and limited to just these ones above.
Background checks are instant and you can leave with any gun you bought the same day.The only way you cant have a gun is if you are a violent felon or a lunatic.Anyone who is a non violent felon will have all their second amendment rights restored once they are released from prison.Anyone who was imprisoned for gun violations such as breaking NFA laws or any thing like that will be immediately released and be free and have all rights restored.
Self-defense applies to property,life,and any one who commits a violent crime.
Anyone who commits first degree murder automatically will be hanged on a rope if there is enough evidence and testimonies that that person who did it.

Anyone who commits a violent crime will be put in life of hard labor and have all their rights removed and must work only for the benefit of helping the communities otherwise he will be put in solitary confinement for the rest of his life and wont get any benefits.

Anyone who commits second degree murder will be put in prison for 20 years depending on the severity of his actions once he has served his time he will be on probation for 10 years if he is good for the 10 years he will have all his second amendment rights restored.

Anyone who commits a third degree murder will serve 1-5 years in prison depending on the severity of their actions and will have 6 months of probation after they served their prison time and if they behave they will have all of their second amendment and all other rights restored.

Anyone who commits manslaughter will serve 3 months in jail and have 3 months of probation and if they are good have all of their second amendment and other rights restored.

Other than all of that everyone will be able to buy any gun they want regardless if they are permanent resident or a full fledged citizen of USA.

ksnecktieman
April 7, 2007, 11:30 AM
This thread has some drift to it. As far as gun laws go we should enforce this one, "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be INFRINGED". And that makes all others null and void. Federal, state, city, The founding fathers really did mean what they said.

Since we drifted, I do think that every public school, at every grade level should have a "firearm familiarity and competency" class. possibly five hours per semester. Maybe nothing more than an "Eddie Eagle" class for the extremely young.

For you guys that want free ammo with a gun purchase, do you understand TANSTAAFL? Do you want the price of every gun sold to be raised by 250 dollars? Are you suggesting a tax payer supported program? SOMEONE has to pay for that ammo.

ServiceSoon
April 7, 2007, 11:38 AM
Background checks would be the only thing I would like to enforce. It makes perfect sense to prevent criminals from obtaining guns. No information would be collected during these checks.

Working Man
April 7, 2007, 12:00 PM
I would have mandatory gun safety and marksmanship taught in our public schools.

Not mandatory but as a PE option. We had stuff like weightlifting, flag
football, volleyball, and such to choose from each semester. Why not
gun safety and marksmanship?

I would also have it as a supported sport type (football/baseball). You could
try out for the Trap and Skeet team, Long Range Marksman team, or 3Gun
...stuff like that.

Background checks would be the only thing I would like to enforce. It makes perfect sense to prevent criminals from obtaining guns. No information would be collected during these checks.

I agree..... once the check is done all information is deleted.

If one is a citizen or legal resident I see no reason why they should
not be allowed to own and CCW the firearm of their choice.

TCB in TN
April 7, 2007, 12:06 PM
No nukes, bio or chemical, for any individual. Artilary, rockets and HE would be at the discretion of the state. Open or concealed carry for all w/o lisc. Full auto as well. No background check, they are not needed. We will keep violent felons in jail, which will no longer be a breeze. No TV, you will be forced to work for your supper and pay for your up keep. No weight rooms or fany gyms for the inmates, make prison more like a prison. The punishment should fit the crime, where you get serious hard time for violence. I also believe in a true 2 strikes rule. Any combination of 2 violent crimes and you NEVER get out. If you murder someone, well the state should not be burdened by your upkeep. Give them a quick appeal process and then the needle. If you commit a non-violent crime you wil have your 2nd ammendment rights restored upon completing you sentence, but we will have a 3 strikes rule for non-violent offenders.

Firearms education would begin early and would be required for all students unless they have a moral/relegious objection. As for the entire requiring people to be armed I would not although I would expect the State to provide a suitable "loaner" weapon for those who can prove a financial hardshp.

G36-UK
April 7, 2007, 01:08 PM
Hughes Amendment is repealed.

Lautenberg undergoes SERIOUS reform. Good intention, crap application.

Waiting periods removed entirely, replaced by an improved check system.

NFA Background check reduced to one month, and tax stamp reduced to $10.

Concealed Carry restictions removed nationwide, with permit reciprocity up to the states.

Here's another suggestion, don't know if anyone would go for it:

Shall-Issue Federal Check and Carry Permit. Basically, this is a federal CCW Permit. This permit is the same requirements as a NFA item today without the tax stamp (fingerprints, 6 month check), and the difference that a LEO MUST sign-off on it. If refused, it must be a damn good reason.

This permit is valid in every state, but also counts as your NICS. Instead of filling out your form as you do now, you just show your FCCP. This card is considered a "pass" on any background check for ANY firearm. Semi-autos, machineguns, DDs, you name it, this is your check.

Would anyone support this kind of permit? I understand it to be an infringement, but at least it's not as big a shafting as you're getting right now.

gego
April 7, 2007, 01:29 PM
Do background checks really keep criminals or other bad guys from getting guns? I think not, so you fellows who are willing to make this compromise are falling into the same thinking trap that the anti's fall into. They think "get rid of bad guns" at the expense of the law abiding person, and everyone will be safe. You think "get rid of bad gun purchasers" at the expense of the law abiding person and everyone will be safe. Neither approach works and just encroaches on the natural right to self defense (which even people who have gone to jail naturally have once they are out of jail).

General Geoff
April 7, 2007, 01:31 PM
Gun Control would never be up to me, because if it were up to me, there would BE no gun control.


Same restrictions as power tools in a hardware store, i.e. no selling to minors without parental supervision. That's about it.

Diamondback6
April 8, 2007, 03:27 AM
And after you defend yourself, the dirtbag is presumed at fault in any civil suits afterward!

Also if you claim 'self-defense', the burden of proof is on the prosecutor...

Chad
April 8, 2007, 07:39 AM
If gun control were up to you!
What both saddens and motivates me is that it SHOULD be!
We allowed the right to be taken away and are left with the difficult task of regaining it.

mjb
April 8, 2007, 08:05 AM
First of all, I would register all the liberals. Then I would confiscate them because no reasonable person would have a need to have a liberal around. Then I would send them to Mexico! :neener:

I would also have it where a person who shoots in self defense cannot be sued by the criminal.

spyderdude
April 8, 2007, 08:24 AM
If gun control were up to me I would,

Continue with the mandatory NICS check
Do away with all requirements for a CCW permit nationwide
Automatic death by firing squad for those who commit serious offenses (rape, murder, kidnapping)
BATF would only regulate highly explosive weapons such as bombs, missiles, and heavy artillery.
Fully automatic small arms will be readily available in gun stores and sporting goods stores.
MANDATORY Firearms safety course in ALL schools nationwide.
Nationwide Castle Doctrine law
Minimum age of 16 to purchase ALL firearms (thats how old u have to be to get a drivers license) after showing proof of completion of a gun safety course, and parental approval.

Thats all I can think of right now.

Damien45
April 8, 2007, 08:30 AM
All current gun control laws would be stricten from the the books, Federal and State. An absolute restructure of gun laws would look like this:

1) Possession and carry of guns would be allowed, and encouraged.
2) Education on gun safety would start in elementry school. Somewhere around 4th or 5th grade (9-10yrs old) the education would begin. It would start with the dangers, identification and recoginition and consiquences for missuse of firearms. As grades progressed so would the lessons. Handling, firing, when to use, ect. Also, the basics would be covered every class (the original lessons in review).
3) Missuse of firearms would have strict penalties. Needless crimes with guns, negligent discharges, ect. Depending on the situation (ND w/no injuries = one penalty, ND w/injuries = stricter penalty, ect) would depend on penalty.
4) Intentional action with a firearm would mean immediate loss of right to keep and bear arms, jail time and fine.

There would be no 3 strike rule. Continuous education on the handling and use of firearms since 10yrs of age, plus respect for the use and care of firearms should mean that intentional use of a firearm in a crime have stricter penalty.

That, roughly, is what I would have as my "gun policy".

Glockfan.45
April 8, 2007, 08:52 AM
My take like it or not, you asked. Just a few simple laws that would be easy to follow, and everything else on the books goes away.

1.) Purchase age of 18 for any and all weapons. If they can put you in a uniform and send you off to war then you should be able to buy a pistol (or a beer for that matter).

2.) Only restricted classes of weapons would be destructive devices ie grenades, grenade launchers, RPGs, artillery, C4, and well you get the idea. To own DDs you would have to prove you have a safe area to use them, perhaps be a member of an artillery range :D , and have a safe storage facility. I wouldnt want people hoarding RPGs in the basement next to the furnace. The only thing that would be totally off limits would be nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. They really dont have any responsible use in private hands. Some people wont like my stance on DDs, but I have explained it before in other posts.

3.) End lawsuits against gun makers over the use of their products. It kills me when somebody is shot in a crime the family sues Jennings. However when somebody is killed in a drunk driving accident nobody sues Ford, or Jack Daniels.

4.) Commit a crime faciliting the use of a weapon (robbery, rape, murder) go to prison on a mandatory life sentence with no possibility of parole.

5.) National shall issue CCW no exceptions (thats directed at you IL,WS,DC,ect).

6.) I would support mandatory training for carry permits. We expect our LEOs to be trained on the proper use of their weapons so how are we any different. If somebody draws a gun in a crowded area to shoot a BG I want them to first have proved they can hit a piece of paper at 10 feet. I have been next to shooters at the range before that would horrify you with their marksmanship. If you can pass pass the test on the first try then you can skip the training, and be issued a permit. And naturally federal buildings are off limits.

7.) No weapons to be exported outside the U.S without authorization.

8.) Must be permanent U.S resident to purchase.

..........and thats it. Eight simple effective laws that would be all the "gun control" any society would ever need.

geronimotwo
April 8, 2007, 10:08 AM
i would ban gun purchase/ownership from anyone with a history of violent crime. otherwise the 2nd amendment has it covered.

WSM MAGNUM
April 8, 2007, 11:39 AM
If it were up to me, there will be no gun laws. The only gun law I would have on the books would be if a politician ever tries to bring up any legislation that infringes upon the Second Amendment, they will be thrown out of office and charged with a felony for violating the Constitution!

gm
April 8, 2007, 12:49 PM
Id enforce the constitution as it was originally meant.Shall not be infringed means what it says folks, shall not be infringed.

No paperwork,cash or credit.Mandatory opening of shooting ranges in each city.You buy the gun then are taught safety courses just like getting a first hunting tag, however if you can show you can be safe with it and know how to use it then you can skip it and just go and enjoy.no license required because it is the second ammendment.Sound suppressors mandatory at all ranges.No special stuff,no tax, no check, nadda to get one.


belt feds whatever,should not matter.Abolish the atf completely,I think the fbi can handle the law on the federal level,state boys and local on their levels.Abolish completely all gun laws,import and made here restrictions.Id be tough on breaking the law though,i.e., you kill,you should be gassed in a week,for violent offenders, a small explosive charge in ones leg,go where your not supposed to and end of leg.


one last thing, guns confiscated in crimes refurbished and sold back on the market.The gun didnt do the crime, the person did.If its junk,its sent off to be used to make a non junk gun.

obxned
April 8, 2007, 01:34 PM
No laws on guns, but a federal mandatory minimum of 25 years in addition to any sentence received for a felony that resulted in serious injury or death, and no parole on any crime without full restitution.

A federal 'castle' law that includes your home, car, school, campsite, and workplace.

The right to defend your property against theft or vandalism: since replacing that which is stolen requires additional hours of work, stealing violated 'involuntary servitude' amendment.

Also an additional $200 tax credit for each taxpayer who can show that they bought ammunition which was used to maintain their personal protection skills.

target1911
April 8, 2007, 01:53 PM
Other than the ones that mentioned the 2nd Amendment, noone said anything about OPEN CARRY. Why conceal it? SHOW IT OFF so the BGs know you are armed....
And if a couple of idiots want a 'Show Down at High Noon' so be it. Just take it out of town so no one gets a stray bullet. If a bystander gets hit by one, it is his fault, ha knew the risk of being in the area

ksnecktieman
April 8, 2007, 02:15 PM
spyderdude? Why would you continue with the nics check if you have no one banned from owning? it seems pointless.

gerinomotwo? So you will have a nics check for everyone to go through? How else will you stop sales to prohibited persons?

Gun laws do not keep guns from the hands of criminals. Anyone willing to face the penalty for murder or robbery is not going to be deterred by a gun law. (Unless of course, you enforce the gun law with capital punishment.)

Jorg Nysgerrig
April 8, 2007, 02:16 PM
The commission of a crime involving any firearm warrants capitol punishment.

Unless you are going to force them do be a politician, I think you mean capital punishment.

Does this apply to the hunter charged with trespass for wandering into the wrong field?
How about an ND that violates the a city statute of discharging a firearm?
Or the guy who wounds an attacker, but is not found justified in attempting to use lethal force.

Chui
April 8, 2007, 02:31 PM
None of the ideas brought forward would work without replacing the teeth into the concept of Militia. I'd make mandatory service into the 'Homeland Defense Forces'. Perhaps two years in which weapons handling would play a large, but not overwhelming, part. For example, in South Louisiana (actually, along the Mississippi River Delta) people need to learn how to deal with flooding preparations, rescue efforts, etc. Women would also be required to attend Homeland Defense Service, perhaps all women would be required to be certified Field Medics though men could also opt for that MOS as well.

I think there should be HDF drills once per month and one weekend per year for testing:

Firearms proficiency -20" M-16A2 or A4 depending on what you were issued.
MOS proficiency (Field medic, MOUT, Resistance and Evading, Small Arms Specialist, etc)
THE CONSTITUTION & BILL OF RIGHTS

(you get the point)

In my humble opinion, preserving the right to own weapons is meaningless if it's out of proper context, i.e., CITIZEN'S DEFENSE.

One thing I'd like to do is, say, take a one week HDF training with those in, say, Arizona so I'd have some exposure to desert survival one year and another year with, say, Minnesota or Wisconsin to get some cold weather exposure.

If one failed to qualify he/she would be fined a percentage of his/her income and would have to obtain a Permit to own anything but his assigned AR-15. One would be required to take a makeup test. If not, perhaps the M16/AR-15 would be secured and you'd have to go thru commercial channels to buy one for yourself. If their was no medical reasons for failure the person would have to pay a yearly fee to keep the commercially-purchased 'sturmgewehr' to encourage one to keep the faith, so to speak. There would have to be some sort of exemption for those with physical issues, obviously, as well as those who are over, say, 50. I would offer tax breaks for those who use ammunition in monthly competitions as well as those who are over 50 and continue to drill or are licensed instructors and do choose to instruct.

I'm thinking that the issued weapons would be a Smith & Wesson M&P 9mm and a Colt AR-15 (both American made and well built). Perhaps, I'd prefer a different national weapon, but whatever the US military uses we would be trained on & issued.

I'm not TOTALLY opposed to registering the issued weapon, but I'm not wholly into no registration. The problem lies in us not being vigilant; the current system-as-designed is probably okay - assuming we'd educate ourselves as to the proper intent of the Fathers which would include the viewing the 2nd Amendment in it's proper context: Defense of the Community (which OBVIOUSLY includes defense of SELF).

SoCalShooter
April 8, 2007, 02:55 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you had complete authority to decide any and all gun control laws in the United States, what would you do? Would you keep any gun control laws at all? If so which ones? What issues would you leave up to states to decide? And what do you think the NRA would do if they were in this same position?

I was just thinking, would'nt it be nice if our representatives asked us this?

0. No laws restricting caliber :) ( I would like to purchase a 75mm field gun)
1. NO laws restricting weapons
2. NO laws restricting ammo
3. You commit a crime with a weapon you do time 10 years minimum NO LEANANCY.
4. You commit 1st degree murder or 2nd degree murder you get the death penalty.
5. Misdemeanors are on a per case basis (I am not sure of all the rules)
6. Federal castle law, includes YOUR PERSON, YOUR FAMILY, YOUR CAR, YOUR DOG, YOUR HOME, RV etc ( basically you have the right to defend your property)
7. Federal law that states no amendments shall be made to restrict weaponry
8. Federal law that states no federal agencies shall be created like the BATFE.
9. NO selling to minors without THEIR adult's / guardian present. (guardian must take the same responsibility if the youth shoots someone)
10. I would keep the NICS in place but mandate a 1 day waiting period. (I don't want felons to have guns just as much as the rest of you.)(Might not be a problem if they are dead though)(this would also be a good "cooling off period")
11. No records of firearms transactions or NICS checks will be kept past 1 day other than maybe a reciept incase of defects.
12. Firearms manufacturers and bullet manufacturers cannot and will not be held responsible for what a USER does with the weapon.
13. Mandate national law that states every man or women 18 and above are required to own atleast 1 firearm of their choice, this includes minimum of 100 rounds. ( Call it the Homeland Defence ACT) (however no registraton of this or proof is necessary, were gonna take this one on faith)
14. If above law 13 cannot be upheld due to monetary woes, the government will provide you with an M1 Garand, M1 carbine, or m14, M16, mod 1903 (1) from surplus at a discounted rate.
15. Confiscated weapons due to criminal activity will be given to the government for and put up for sale for the rest of us to aquire.



*4) Firing solid-tipped ATGMs or handheld SAMs at targets sounds like fun.*
ErikM that does sound like fun to me.

*I am assuming that the '21' laws will be repealed? What about the people who cant afford a pistol? I cant afford even a makarov now with my current budget. I am not trying to be a troll, but I am merely asking about the proposed requirement's details.*

Forgot who asked this but this should take care of that problem. Would you like a discounted Garand?

LkWinnipesaukee
April 8, 2007, 03:01 PM
I'd replace the 2A with:

The right of anyone not incarcerated (the People) to keep and bear arms with absolutely no restrictions set forth by any federal, state, or local government, shall not be infringed.


How can you argue with that? :)


edit: and what SoCalShooter said.

glockman19
April 8, 2007, 03:11 PM
There would be NO gun control. Just more stringent penalty for misuse. Use a gun in a crime go to jail and serve your longer term with no time for good behavior. Kill someone while in comission of a crime, NO jail, swift execution. Kill someone in self defense, medal of honor.

ksnecktieman
April 8, 2007, 11:38 PM
glock? If anyone sucessfully uses a gun in defense fo self, or loved ones,,, or even of property, you want them relieved of responsibility?

I agree,,, I have three daughters, and I just removed all of my "low road" comments.

Gun control means using two hands, if that is what it takes to hit your target.

Bruce H
April 8, 2007, 11:50 PM
There would be no control period. Kill someone who doesn't need it and you are gone too. Any politician who proposes gun restrictions can be killed by anybody that wants to.

Caimlas
April 9, 2007, 12:55 AM
The only gun laws I'd keep would be the ones which involve using said guns in a dangerous* (intentional or otherwise) manner, and allowance for <i>private </i> individuals or groups to ban firearms from their property - provided they provide armed protection on the facilities. :) Otherwise, anything, anywhere goes.

* Intentionally dangerous firearm handling, unintentional and wanton firearm handling, firing in a crowded area, handling a firearm while inebriated and in public, etc.

gego
April 9, 2007, 01:25 AM
I don't know about this thread. I would have thought that everyone understood the natural right we have, not from government, but because it is a principal of nature that defense is necessary for any animal to survive. Yet there are all sorts of limitations that seem to be acceptable and even the advocacy of forced education and forced involuntary servitude to a master state. I think that freedom is poorly understood.

No wonder the second amendment has failed so miserably. Apparently Zumbo was not alone.

Cuda
April 9, 2007, 01:48 AM
Eliminate lawyers. They are a major reason there are so many laws..

But seriously we already have the one and only gun control law we need, it's called the 2A.. Now if you are a BG and use a gun in the commision of a crime the punishment should be so harsh you'll never do it again... And once you've done your time, unless someone can show me in the Constitution where it is not allowed you should be given back that right...


C

Elza
April 9, 2007, 01:49 AM
1) A reasonable age of majority for ownership with no restrictions on what may be owned.
2) Mandatory prison time for the commission of a crime using a weapon.
A) No bodily harm first offence: 10 years without parole to be served first and consecutively with any other sentence(s)
B) No bodily harm second offence: 20 years without parole to be served first and consecutively with any other sentence(s)
C) No bodily harm third offence: Life without parole.
D) With bodily harm: Life without parole.

Professor K
April 9, 2007, 02:24 AM
No restrictions on weapon ownership/purchase. Just let capitalism take it's course.

In schools, I'd teach marksmanship in various stages in gym class, along with wargaming (airsoft type games), kendo/fencing, archery, and of course, dodgeball, soccer, weight lifting, ect. Like in elementary school, kids will get to use air rifles, in 5-7, they can mess with .22 rifles and pistols, and get to use a 20 gauge shotgun, in 8-10 is high school (no 11th or 12th grade in government schools, 11th and 12th grade would optimally be a "free" years, where you can work or just mess around, or if you wanted, you could go to more school somewhere else). In 8th grade, you'll be instructed in usage of full caliber rifles, in 9th the usage of pistols and shotguns, along with a semi auto only variant of current military issue rifle. In 10th, you will get to learn to use the service rifle, along with all the other small arms the military uses. They'd also learn basic military stuff and various other stuff.

Pacifist parents may let their kids out of those parts of gym class, and all the pacifist kids will get a ball and a field to go play in and a supervisor while all the other kids are having fun.

Military service isnt required, but all people who join the military and go through basic will get to keep whatever they're issued with. However, during your military career, you will get issued 100 rounds of ammo, and you must be accountable for it (Swiss style).

Way tougher penalties for all violent crimes. No laws against drugs or alcohol.

I guess that's some of what I'd do in my country.

mp510
April 9, 2007, 02:42 AM
If you had complete authority to decide any and all gun control laws in the United States, what would you do? Would you keep any gun control laws at all? If so which ones? What issues would you leave up to states to decide? And what do you think the NRA would do if they were in this same position?

I would set the minimum right to purchase age at 17, coincidental with the minimum age set forth for the unorganized militia of the US. I don't see a problem with a truly functional instacheck system, if not but to verify elgibility of first time buyers. I believe that the NRA prefer the current 18/21 rule and they already support NICS.

NICS- first time purchase only. If someone has a gun (and can prove it) they can already do damage if they go nutty. I could accept a brief questionaree (like the CT DPS-67-C Form, that serves as an affidavit form of verifying eligibility.
The NRA supports background checks.

NO AWB, Prohibited handguns, etc...
NRA pretty much has the same position, except on plastic guns

No NFA. An M-16 is the same whether it's being carried by a GI or a civilian.
I have no clue what NRA would go for on this

Disabling factors

Violent Felony Conviction (rape, manslaughter, assault, etc....)
Drug trafficing convictions
diagnosed mental illness that could prevent an individual from appropriately using a firearm
A physical disability that causes an individual to recklessly handle a firearm (an individual in question could be tested, and if disqualified can qualify later by passing a basic, practical, gun handling test.

I believe NRA would stick with the current rules.

I think I screwed up royally. You seem to have given me an autocratic position and I am ensuring my subjects have a means by which to overthrow me. At least I don't have to worry about reelection;)

Frog48
April 9, 2007, 02:46 AM
No gun laws at all. Violent crimes, regardless what sort of weapon is used, would all be treated the same.

Glockfan.45
April 9, 2007, 02:53 AM
I don't know about this thread. I would have thought that everyone understood the natural right we have, not from government, but because it is a principal of nature that defense is necessary for any animal to survive. Yet there are all sorts of limitations that seem to be acceptable and even the advocacy of forced education and forced involuntary servitude to a master state. I think that freedom is poorly understood.

No wonder the second amendment has failed so miserably. Apparently Zumbo was not alone.

The key word here is animal. Like it or not a certian degree of law and control became needed when humans first formed nations, and began moving into cities. Absolute unrestricted freedom and civilization do not work well together. Now I have yet to read a responce to this thread where anybody has said that none have the right to defend themselves. Now what degree of law and control to maintain a prosperous society is debatable.

No gun laws at all. Violent crimes, regardless what sort of weapon is used, would all be treated the same

Define violent crime. If I fight you in a bar (violent crime) is it the same as robbing you with a knife, gun, ect in your court?

Lt. G
April 9, 2007, 03:00 AM
none, open carry should be allowed in all the USA. In fact make it mandatory to have each household be issued one long gun and one pistol and have to qual every year with them.

Felons different story, case by case basis.

Professor K
April 9, 2007, 03:26 AM
Regarding felons, once they get out prison/probation, then they should have the same rights as everyone else. Whatever happened to the whole "have a nice life" thing. I think partially one of the reasons felons are bad when they come out again, is that they're basically being told they're still criminals anyway, but they want more space. The other reason is that they're not in there long enough much of the time. Also, by some current state laws, you can be a felon for shoplifting 300 bucks worth of stuff (an iPod?)

Now, stealing an iPod is definitely punishable, but not punishable by having some constitutional rights taken from you, and spending your whole rest of your life under state supervision cuz you stole an ipod at 19.

wjustinen
April 9, 2007, 11:55 PM
the use, carriage, or possession of weapons of any type would be null and void.

Of course I'm a Canadian, resident in Canada, so I would hope that my authority to change the law would also apply here at home.

Same thing.

Even scum have a right to defend their lives, and the lives of their loved ones. That applies to defense of their nation as well.

:what: :confused: :eek: :uhoh:

That's what 2A is about.

TallPine
April 10, 2007, 12:51 PM
Repeal all gun laws back to and including 1934 NFA.

CCW allowed without a permit (as per 2A - it doesn't say anything about "concealment").

I'm okay with "usage" laws, for instance prohibiting discharge within city limits except in self defense.

I might even be okay with some kind of law that prohibited those with a felony record from carrying concealed. It wouldn't really do much good though :rolleyes:

HiroProX
April 10, 2007, 03:39 PM
No type restrictions, no more FFLs, nada, zip.

Commit murder with any kind of weapon, automatic first degree murder. By placing a hand on a weapon and then using it to kill another person not in self defense, the criminal had full intent to kill.

md7
April 10, 2007, 04:08 PM
the constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms period. as such, there should not really be any laws pertaining to citizens being able to buy, keep, carry firearms etc. an honest person that buys a gun is not going to endanger anyone with it. the danger comes from someone that already has it in them to do wrong, and no gun law is going to prevent them from whatever they have already decided to do. (in washington d.c. guns are illegal and crime is very high) to sum it all up, gun laws are ineffective and unconstitutional. the only people affected by these restrictive laws are the people that are already obeying the law while the criminals continue to bypass the law and prey upon citizens that have been disarmed.

Anonymous Coward
April 10, 2007, 06:57 PM
So...how do you guys figure on keeping guns (including machine guns) out of the hands of felons?

Not your problem, right, as long as you're not one of the victims?

Rev. DeadCorpse
April 10, 2007, 07:03 PM
So...how do you guys figure on keeping guns (including machine guns) out of the hands of felons?

By keeping violent felons in jail. Execution for repeat offenders. Not to mention the ever popular "death by intended victim" that allowing the free exercise of our Second Amendment Rights would entail.

"Shall not be infringed". If you can afford it, and store it/shoot it without harming your neighbors...

Go for it...

Speer
April 10, 2007, 07:35 PM
Repeal all gun laws back to and including 1934 NFA.

Absolutely goddamn right.

DomMega
April 10, 2007, 07:35 PM
I would federally override the states that invoke law abiding victims, like oh say, CALIFORNIA! Everyone would be able to carry self-protection handguns anywhere in the country at any time. Any type of weapon (within reason) would be able to be purchased. No anti-tank guns are nuclear warheads and such would be allowed to be purchased, however I think only the rich would be able to afford such things anyway. Firearms would bring families together instead of create taboo ideals of violence. People could wake up on a Sunday morning and take the wife and kids to the range for competion shooting and tournaments. The general population would see firearms as a way of recreation and self-preservation, as well as a way to bring the family unit together throughout America.

I would of course use Switzerland as the model country for my campaign.

What's sad is the lawful gun owners that do have them, end up getting disarmed in major disasters by local law enforcement when they need those weapons most. It's like, what's the point?

DomMega
April 10, 2007, 07:38 PM
Even scum have a right to defend their lives, and the lives of their loved ones. That applies to defense of their nation as well.


Not if they've already made an attempt on someone else's life. At that point they have no rights, they're just allowed to exist, nothing more.

TCB in TN
April 10, 2007, 08:50 PM
So...how do you guys figure on keeping guns (including machine guns) out of the hands of felons?

Not your problem, right, as long as you're not one of the victims?

Reading a few posts would have let you in on this one pretty quick. Felons belong in JAIL! Violent felons deserve major time, IF they do get out and do it again, well they shouldn't get out a 2nd time. BTW if we put felons away for a LONG time and make prison a very BAD place then maybe they will think twice about ever doing it again. Just another idea is the liberal use of the death penalty for those OHHHHH so deserving of it.

SWMAN
April 11, 2007, 01:53 PM
I'd make it mandatory that kids in elementary school health classes receive instruction in the safe handling of guns. If the libs and the Brady Gang are sooooo concerned about our children's safety, they'd be advocating this too. Trouble is, I think their afraid the kids may become more progun and not as antigun as they'd like them to be if they knew more about guns.:what:

wjustinen
April 11, 2007, 08:47 PM
"So...how do you guys figure on keeping guns (including machine guns) out of the hands of felons?":banghead:

It is not possible to keep guns out of the hands of felons. Therefor, it is not logical to accept restrictions on the rest of us.

As for what to do about the bad guys, that isn't "gun control" - trigger control maybe - but not "gun control."

TEDDY
April 11, 2007, 09:08 PM
when the gov makes felons out of all citizens then what do you do.think about all the laws that are not enforced because there stupid.how about the blue laws.what is the 14th amendment?other than civil rights violations there were no gun laws until the 1900s.if you know of any you may correct me.most gun laws started were to restrict a class of people.:banghead:

fedlaw
April 11, 2007, 09:15 PM
Why not do it the Dianne Feinstein/Chuckie (I'm an alpha male) Schumer way: Guns for me and none for you? This seems to work for the folks who elected* these people.

*At least in Illinois (meaning Chicago), we've done away with actual elections and substituted a system whereby the Friends of Richie, Rod, Todd, etc., get to perpetuate their own existence and enrich their friends (meaning folks that pay to play) at the same time.

Erebus
April 11, 2007, 10:07 PM
Rule#Only A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Militia is for the defense of the homeland from invaders. Active duty military goes overseas. Citizens of militia age will be in the militia and will report for range practice and instruction at set intervals. Militia members must be armed. They will therefore be issued the standard infantry rifle and a standard issue sidearm. They will be issued ammo, they will use that ammo to practice. They will have an ammo allowance so that they will have sufficient ammo to practice without going overboard. Anyone not possessing the intestinal fortitude to fulfill their duties as citizens will be sent to Camp Ermey for proper training and conditioning. Legal immigrants will have the choice to participate in the militia system. If they opt out and the SHTF they may end up on their own. Illegals will be immediately deported upon identification as such. Repeat offenders will be considered spies and dealt with as such. Illegals crossing the border in a time of war will immediately be considered spies and dealt with as such. If the SHTF and a citizen runs away to Canada or any other country they will be assumed to be a traitor and an invader if they return and dealt with as such.

Anyone not in jail or prison will have full rights to purchase, transfer, construct, or in any other way possess any infantry weapon they choose. An infantry weapon would be defined as anything an infantryman can carry. Hopefully this would cause judges so really consider who they cut loose. No one who has paid their debt to society as determined in a court of law will be denied their right to self defense.

No special penalties for crimes committed with guns. Assault, murder, robbery, and such already have penalties. Crimes committed while armed already carry a more severe penalty regardless of what the weapon is. That seems fair to me. I don't expect there to be a big problem with home invasions when every home contains one or more automatic rifles and a corresponding number of handguns.

jahwarrior
April 11, 2007, 10:32 PM
this is a loaded question. i personally do believe in a certain level of gun control. i think there are a lot of stupid, reckless people out there, who have no business carrying a potato, much less a weapon. and, before anyone flames me for saying that, yes, i know, there is the second amendment to consider. but consider this: do you want the potential child molester/serial rapist/drug dealer/mass murder to own a handgun? and AR15? i know i don't. i believe in background checks. i think anyone who clears a federal criminal check should be allowed to carry in an unlimited fashion anywhere in the US. i also believe in mandatory firearm safety classes for owners. we require people to get driver's licenses and take a minimum of 2 hours of safe driver's ed, why not guns? i think anyone who has a felony arrest for a violent/sexual crime should not be allowed to own a firearm. any felon/ex-felon caught with a firearm should receive a mandatory sentence of 10 years in a federal penitentiary for gun possession. yes, FEDERAL prison. i personally don't like that gun laws vary from state to state. question: why should i worry about if i can carry my gun with me while on vacation? answer: i shouldn't have to. i think gun licensing should be federal, not state, regulated. i just know people are gonna freak on me about that.

JCF
April 11, 2007, 10:40 PM
Felons belong in JAIL! Violent felons deserve major time, IF they do get out and do it again, well they shouldn't get out a 2nd time. BTW if we put felons away for a LONG time and make prison a very BAD place then maybe they will think twice about ever doing it again. Just another idea is the liberal use of the death penalty for those OHHHHH so deserving of it.

Yeah, but until such a time as the pesky little impediments to these "solutions" are eliminated, we will just have to deal with the inconvenience of due process, sentencing guidelines, judicial discretion, right to bail, etc.

However... once all that nonsense is taken care of, then we can tap into all those extra billions we have lying around and start building our prison cities.

It is utterly amazing to me how individuals who recognize the inherent folly of oversimplified perspectives of gun ownership (eg: more guns manufactured = more guns available to criminals) simply cannot, or refuse to, apply equal scrutiny to issues that they find personally inconvenient.

Erebus
April 11, 2007, 11:17 PM
do you want the potential child molester/serial rapist/drug dealer/mass murder to own a handgun? And until they have been convicted of such a crime how do we tell who 'potential' offenders are?

JCF
April 11, 2007, 11:24 PM
Quote:
do you want the potential child molester/serial rapist/drug dealer/mass murder to own a handgun?

And until they have been convicted of such a crime how do we tell who 'potential' offenders are?

LOL... it is sometimes difficult to identify such offenders even AFTER they have been convicted.

TCB in TN
April 11, 2007, 11:24 PM
Yeah, but until such a time as the pesky little impediments to these "solutions" are eliminated, we will just have to deal with the inconvenience of due process, sentencing guidelines, judicial discretion, right to bail, etc. .

Well seeing as how this whole thread is impossible, and is an idealistic "wish list" then pesky little details like sentencing guidelines, and judicial discretion really ARE NOT a problem. BUT if you really want to get down to it, I have a couple of ideas that would change both pretty quickly. 1st Vote for local judges who are actually tough on crime. 2nd Vote for politicians who will vote for longer tougher violent crime penalties. Do that and most of the problems quickly go away. As for due process, and right to bail, IF you are accused of a violent felony then you should have to present a VERY high bail or stay in jail. And I'm not sure where due process comment comes in. I may have messed a comment or two but all the comments I read were about "Convicted Felons".


However... once all that nonsense is taken care of, then we can tap into all those extra billions we have lying around and start building our prison cities.

Just for starters how about cutting "non-violent felony sentences down to make up for the difference. Or maybe the money saved by 1 trial and a lethal injection might off set the continued up keep of some of these scum bags. How about cutting loose some folks who are in jail for victimless crimes to keep the violent guys there, but you know if you want to build some prison cities then hey, I'm with ya! :rolleyes:

It is utterly amazing to me how individuals who recognize the inherent folly of oversimplified perspectives of gun ownership (eg: more guns manufactured = more guns available to criminals) simply cannot, or refuse to, apply equal scrutiny to issues that they find personally inconvenient.

No the amazing thing to me, is how complicated people try to make somethings that just are not! Plenty of things out there that need a mental giant to understand, the idea that keeping violent felons in jail will reduce violent crime is IMHO not one of them.

JCF
April 11, 2007, 11:43 PM
I have a couple of ideas that would change both pretty quickly. 1st Vote for local judges who are actually tough on crime. 2nd Vote for politicians who will vote for longer tougher violent crime penalties. Do that and most of the problems quickly go away.

Oh? How? Where exactly do the problems go???

As for due process, and right to bail, IF you are accused of a violent felony then you should have to present a VERY high bail or stay in jail. And I'm not sure where due process comment comes in. I may have messed a comment or two but all the comments I read were about "Convicted Felons".

Jail isn't Narnia. Nor is it limbo. Nor is it Never Never land. Jail is an actual tangible place; a real concrete and steel facility, requiring real flesh and blood staff earning real greenback dollars, and requiring really exceptionally expensive infrastructure and services to support its existence. Sentencing people to jail is the BEGINNING of the problem... not the end.

Just for starters how about cutting "non-violent felony sentences down to make up for the difference.

Like what? That isn't likely to make the "tough on crime" folks too happy is it? That's what everyone is complaining about now... felons out in the street. We just had a thread where people were advocating shooting car thieves on sight. You really want to LOWER sentencing for felonies?

Or maybe the money saved by 1 trial and a lethal injection might off set the continued up keep of some of these scum bags.

It would. Relatively speaking it would be an insignificant amount though. You know what I find interesting? That so many people who have so much mistrust of their government to administer their taxes, protect their rights, fill potholes in the street, etc., are so very, very ready to bestow the right to these same people to take lives.

How about cutting loose some folks who are in jail for victimless crimes to keep the violent guys there, but you know if you want to build some prison cities then hey, I'm with ya!

Sure... victimless crimes... like drug offenses, prostitution, etc. The "tough on crime" judges and politicians and their backers will surely be good with that.

No the amazing thing to me, is how complicated people try to make somethings that just are not! Plenty of things out there that need a mental giant to understand, the idea that keeping violent felons in jail will reduce violent crime is IMHO not one of them.

Just like taking guns off the street will reduce crime.

Doesn't take a genius to figure it out.

Simple.

TCB in TN
April 12, 2007, 06:30 PM
Oh? How? Where exactly do the problems go???

Your comment was about "sentencing guidelines, judicial discretion", well putting in Legislators and Judges who are tough on crime, will certain fix those.

Jail isn't Narnia. Nor is it limbo. Nor is it Never Never land. Jail is an actual tangible place; a real concrete and steel facility, requiring real flesh and blood staff earning real greenback dollars, and requiring really exceptionally expensive infrastructure and services to support its existence. Sentencing people to jail is the BEGINNING of the problem... not the end.

OK, exactly how is that ANY different than it is today? We HAVE a ton of folks already in jail today, just that we tend to let out the violent offenders and keep the white collar folks in there. We have LOTS of jails, already, we just need to re-purpose it in a more effective way.

Like what? That isn't likely to make the "tough on crime" folks too happy is it? That's what everyone is complaining about now... felons out in the street. We just had a thread where people were advocating shooting car thieves on sight. You really want to LOWER sentencing for felonies?

You may be right, but I can assure you that letting out all of these violent offenders ain't doing nothing for anyone. But if you really want to get down to brass tacks, there are a lot of inmates doing time for victimless crime. Letting those folks out sooner makes A LOT more sense than the way things are now.

Just like taking guns off the street will reduce crime.

First of all last time I checked guns are in-animate objects that need someone to USE them. Removing an in-animate object has NOTHING to do with crime. But I guess maybe you are just a little smarter than I am, so please tell me exactly how will taking violent offenders off the streets, NOT reduce violent crime?
Especially since every statistic I have ever seen says that violent crime is more often than not committed by repeat offenders.

battlehatch
April 12, 2007, 07:14 PM
1. 2 day wait for background check and cooling off for FIRST purchase. All purchases after that are instant w/NCIS check, now wait with proof of ownership of any previous firearms.

2. No firearms ownership for felons or violent criminals, none.

3. Concealed carry or open carry legal, everywhere.

4. Transportation of loaded firearms, anytime.

5. Firearms used in crimes to be confiscated. Firearms used in self defense to be returned, no fees or charges.

Unfortunately, we don't have any politicians with enough sense to go after the criminals. Instead we get stupid laws that make criminals out of normal law abiding citizens.

Art Eatman
April 12, 2007, 07:24 PM
I prefer the Weaver stance, myself.

Art

TCB in TN
April 12, 2007, 08:27 PM
AMEN Art! :D

heypete
April 12, 2007, 08:52 PM
My breakdown would be something like this: No restrictions or prohibitions on firearms of any sort including full-autos of all types.

Explosives/frag weapons like grenades, RPGs, etc. would require some sort of license/safe storage provision and a record kept for police/fire responding to an emergency at the storage location. Having ammo cook off in a fire is no big deal. Having dynamite or grenades cook off is a completely different thing. Letting the firemen know that there's explosives there is important. It'd probably be unwise to have RPGs in an apartment complex, and there'd need to be some sort of law to prevent such behavior.

Artillery, mortars, and tank cannon would similarly be allowed, subject to a minor degree of regulation (nothing more strict that the NFA restrictions, only without the tax). Ammo would need to be stored in an appropriate magazine, rather than in a garage or some such. Current regulations on explosive materials seem to be adequate from a safety standpoint.

No nukes, bio, or chemical weapons period. Any arguments supporting this are foolish.

No prohibitions against carriage of firearms, openly or concealed, in public places. Owners of private property are allowed to restrict the carriage of firearms on their property. Government buildings, courthouses, etc. can restrict the carriage of firearms, but must allow for safe storage of those guns (like a quarter-operated locker...they used to have things like this at airports). Bona fide weapons (not nailclippers, pocket knives, etc.) would remain prohibited from commercial passenger aircraft, but could be carried by the pilots.

Carriage of firearms in public would be limited solely by the same provisions relating to driving under the influence. If you drink, don't drive or carry. If you're not drinking, you're welcome to carry in a restaurant that serves alcohol, subject to the property owner's policies (if the owner doesn't want people carrying, he can prohibit it).

The NFA would essentially be dissolved, with the exception of NFA-like restrictions on DDs (actual DDs, like explosives, not 20mm rifles or anything)...but no NFA tax.

Manufacture of new machineguns would be permitted, the military would be authorized to surplus ammunition, weapons, artillery, etc. to the public. Import restrictions would be eliminated, as would restrictions on ammunition.

sorensen440
April 13, 2007, 02:06 AM
Some day when I rule the world these will be the only gun laws

Must be 18 years or older to buy a gun or have parental permission

There will be no carry permits issued as needing a permit would be a violation of the rkba

Records of a gun purchase would be destroyed by the store owner after any return period or warantee period is over

A politian trying to pass a law that violated rkba would spend 30 days in jail and be removed from there position permanently

sorensen440
April 13, 2007, 02:18 AM
by some current state laws, you can be a felon for shoplifting 300 bucks worth of stuff (an iPod?)

or for example in california

Perjury
Involuntary manslaughter
Discharge laser at aircraft
Accepting bribe to throw sport event
Sale of human organs for transplantation
Receiving stolen property
Vandalism of $400 or more
Money laundering

I dont think any of these should automaticly remove your 2a right

ccw9mm
April 13, 2007, 02:34 AM
Much as I'd prefer some increased comfort level with the degree of competency of anyone near me carrying a firearm, and much as I'd prefer that crooks be denied access (to the extent possible, which might not be much), the plethora of laws already on the books has shown one thing: folks bent on death and destruction will commit crimes anyway, regardless of laws restricting or banning use of a given tool to do so.

What I believe would create a sensible, enforceable standard ... in less than 1000 words:
Unrestricted ownership, purchase, movement, storage, sale, with no documentation required (as with any other tool in the tool chest). Mere ownership, purchase, movement, etc, isn't a crime. It's the violent misuse of the tool that is.
Penalties for actual crimes (ie, murder, rape, torture, kidnapping, assault, etc) that are already on the books should be sufficiently enforced so as to keep serious BG's off the street and separated from society for the full duration of their terms of sentence.
Felonies should be violent and heinous, either physical or financial; misdemeanors should be everything else.
Garnishing of wages and/or seizure of property to cover fines and restitution should become the norm, though there would have to be serious oversight and limitations, here, lest property rights get flung out the window with the bath water.

A mandatory three-strikes requirement for serious, violent felonies.
Death penalty, for the worst of the worst incorrigibles.
Recognition of the absolute right of a free citizen and individual to defend him/herself in any/all situations requiring defense, to the degree necessary, with appropriate shielding from lawsuits if no-billed by a Grand Jury as a justifiable act of self-defense.

That would just about do.

jahwarrior
April 13, 2007, 02:52 AM
Perjury
Involuntary manslaughter
Discharge laser at aircraft
Accepting bribe to throw sport event
Sale of human organs for transplantation
Receiving stolen property
Vandalism of $400 or more
Money laundering


i think many of these demonstrate irresponsible behaviour, and lack of concern for the welfare of others, not to mention just plain poor character. well, fine, not the sports thing.

JCF
April 13, 2007, 05:10 PM
Your comment was about "sentencing guidelines, judicial discretion", well putting in Legislators and Judges who are tough on crime, will certain fix those.

How does it “fix” them?

I am not sure if you caught it or not, but my presentation of these issues as problems was done with considerable sarcasm.

With all due respect, I’m not sure what it is you do for a living, but I suspect that it hasn’t much to do with criminal justice. Do you understand what the implications are of a criminal justice / judicial system that is devoid of sentencing guidelines, judicial discretion, etc? Do you understand that while those facilities permit problematic and lax distribution of sentencing and justice, they also protect against unilaterally obtuse administration of rule of law? It is judicial discretion that permits, for example, the bench to render a decision which takes into account mitigating circumstances when a citizen deploys his weapon in defense of life.

It simply baffles me that persons can delude themselves into believing they are advocates of the 2A rights of the people whilst vociferously advocating the erosion, and in your case I'd go so far as to say the disassembly, of the the fundamental infrastructure, the checks and balances, that protects those rights.


OK, exactly how is that ANY different than it is today? We HAVE a ton of folks already in jail today, just that we tend to let out the violent offenders and keep the white collar folks in there. We have LOTS of jails, already, we just need to re-purpose it in a more effective way.

While I agree with the general principle of what you are saying, your perspective is wildly, and I mean wildly, oversimplified.

Beyond this, I’m not sure how much contact you’ve had with the population of the various facilities located around your area of the world, but if you honestly believe that they are housing a predominance of white collar offenders you are living in a fantasy. I would love to be a fly on the wall and observe as you walked down the range of a state prison and attempted to make the decision as to who you personally felt should be released into the community without threat. And I would then love to witness your defense of those decisions to the community, the victims, and the tough on crime people whose presence on the bench and in the government you have advocated.


You may be right, but I can assure you that letting out all of these violent offenders ain't doing nothing for anyone. But if you really want to get down to brass tacks, there are a lot of inmates doing time for victimless crime. Letting those folks out sooner makes A LOT more sense than the way things are now.

No it doesn’t. Not necessarily.

When you actually have an understanding of the way that crime in this country works you begin to understand that the answers are not nearly as neat and simple as one might expect.

Perpetrators of “victimless” (which is in itself a highly contentious term) and non-violent crimes, incur on the people of this nation, by and large, a much higher toll than do the traditionally reviled violent offenders. We concentrate on violent offenders because of the immediately identifiable enormity of their actions. However, they represent the overwhelming minority of offenders overall. And when examined clinically, outside of emotion, it becomes apparent that our traditional beliefs and views of violent offenders do not necessarily coincide with reality.

Consider if you will:

Statuatory rapists are generally considered to be the most innocuous of sexual offenders. In fact many people believe that stat rape should not be considered a sexual offense at all. There is tremendous mythology regarding so and so’s neighbor’s brother, etc. who is a registered sex offender but has been married to his victim for the past twenty years.

Incest offenders are generally reviled and there is a pervading belief that the most effective treatment is community based delivery of a Gold Dot to the temple.

YET… when we actually examine the statistics surrounding these offenders, we find that in fact incest offenders are often very amenable to treatment, very, very low likelihood of displaying recidivist behavior, very low likelihood of graduated re-offense, and low likelihood of further contact with the criminal justice system in general.

Stat rapists on the other hand are among the HIGHEST risk of sexual offenders in terms of recidivist behavior, they are among the HIGHEST risk of graduated sexual offending behavior, they have among the LOWEST level of success in treatment, and their victims self-report EQUIVALENT degrees of loss and injury as victims of incest and stranger rape.

So is it better to let out the perpetrator of the "victimless crime", or the child molester who "deserves to die"?

Just because one believes (and truly wants) an issue to be simple does not mean it actually is.


First of all last time I checked guns are in-animate objects that need someone to USE them. Removing an in-animate object has NOTHING to do with crime. But I guess maybe you are just a little smarter than I am, so please tell me exactly how will taking violent offenders off the streets, NOT reduce violent crime?
Especially since every statistic I have ever seen says that violent crime is more often than not committed by repeat offenders.

It is not an issue of intelligence. It is an issue of exposure, consideration and understanding.

And the problem is not with the premise. The problem is with the principle underlying it.

The idea that removing guns from the hands of the populace will reduce crime presupposes that the problem of criminality is contingent upon the presence of an implement facilitating its display.

Most gun owners have successfully been able to wrap head around the idea that this is something of a thinking error. Part of the reason that they have done so is, in my personal opinion, convenience. I say that because a failure to transcend to that level of advanced thought places one in a position of being compromised in their ability to defend his or her right to own a firearm. There is inherent reward for doing your homework in this regard.

However, there is little impetus to move beyond this point. In fact it is convenient to remain there in that it eliminates the need to question much of the neatly packaged rhetoric that has been used to support the position of gun ownership. However for those people who are necessarily thrust into places where understanding the principles and mechanics of crime and justice is an imperative, this is simply not enough. It is not enough to hammer a fist and shout “do the crime, do the time” anymore. There needs to be better.

So… in that spirit…

We run into a problem, as we do with the guns=crime argument, when we face the felons in jail=less crime argument.

The reason that we run into a problem is that the felons in jail=less crime argument also makes a presupposition. That presupposition is that the problem of criminality is an intrinsic component of the individual as opposed to the society.

Basically, the idea that building more prisons and jailing more felons will reduce crime is contingent upon the concept that there is a finite, or at least stemmed, number of individuals in our society capable of the display of criminal behavior. It is based upon something of a martial model; the idea being that if we only get enough of them, if by attrition if by no other means, we will surely extinguish the larger problem.

This is an overly simplistic and shortsighted response to a very, very complex and pervasive social problem.

It ignores the fact that the problem of crime is not a problem of the individual per se, but one of the community. It ignors the fact that criminality is a condition created and propogated through a process of continuous manufacture. It is not innate. Our society, and the conditions herein, have become conducive to the production of persons willing to display criminal behavior. It is going to take much, much, much more than a bunch of prisons and "tough on crime" judges and pols to fix this problem.

We cannot hold the community responsible for the actions of the individual exclusively, but we also cannot address the problem in a vacuum exclusive of initiatives to address the underlying social maladies leading to rampant displays of criminality.

The argument you have forwarded is a very, very commonly held, but horrifically flawed, one.

There is no ”simple” solution TCB. The problem of crime in this country is a PROFOUNDLY complex web of economics, politics, morals, ethics, religion, race, gender,, etc., etc., etc.

No amount of protestation, no mass of prison cells, no amount of caterwauling and homespun remedies by Charlie Daniels is going to make that any different.

Nio
April 13, 2007, 05:22 PM
I take a lot of grief for my position on this, but...

I don't think that we should 'offer' certain classes in high school. For instance we 'offer' driver's education classes. I don't think we should offer that.

I think it should be REQUIRED. I don't think you should be able to graduate high school until you can pass a driving test.

There are a couple of classes I'd like to see REQUIRED for every able bodied citizen to take before leaving primary education.

1. Firearm Instruction.
2. Driver's Education.
3. Parenting.
4. Human relations.
5. Life skills. (This is how to start a fire, dammit!)
6. Citizenship.
7. Human Sexuality, including positions and techniques, as well as dangers and drawbacks.
8. Sanitation.
9. Emergency preparedness, including first aid.

When I went for my Concealed Handgun Permit, I had to take an 8 hour class, pass both a practical and a theory test, pass an FBI background check, and if I don't obey the regulations I not only lose my right forever, but I can go to prison.

If it were up to me, you would need to pass a 16 hour class, pass the tests, and pass the background check before you were allowed to buy a firearm. Of course, since you'd have gotten that in High School, it wouldn't be a problem. EVERYBODY would pretty much automatically get their Citizenship Liscence (for lack of a better term) when they graduate High School. No graduation? No rights as a citizen.

You would also need a similar liscence, with similar requirements, to:

1. Buy a car - or a boat or any other vehicle capable of travel at more than three miles per hour.
2. Buy alcohol. (Different meaning for 'liquor lisence'.)
3. Buy other dangerous substances. (Cigarettes, rat poison, matches.)
4. Buy a home.
5. Get married.
6. Have children.
7. Vote. (I think that a requirement of voting should also be property ownership.)
8. Access the internet.

If you are too stupid, inept, or whatever, to pass the basic requirement, then you are too stupid, inept, or whatever to be driving, much less any of those other things - like voting, for instance.

I think that military service should be compulsatory for both sexes. Conciencous Objectors can take medical service instead. Persons not completing their service cannot participate as citizens nor hold government office.

So, I'd abolish all the gun laws and make a new one: You not ony have to own a gun, you have to have training too. That would be real easy to do in high school. Imagine what we could accomplish as a nation with educated citizens.

Of course, given the state of schools these days...well...I won't go there.

OK. Ya'll can all post the :eek: :rolleyes: :barf: faces now.

Nio

The Shootist
April 13, 2007, 08:35 PM
OK! Guys

I'm A Felon and an alcoholic but everyone that has mentioned sentencing for felons paints them with an awfully wide brush. :banghead:

I Had 3 DWI's within a 10 year period when I was in 1974my last in 89 . The last was 9yrs & 7 months from the second one so I got a felony. I spent 3 months in jail,6 months in alcohol rehab. and a 6 year probation sentence.
I never had or have had since a traffic ticket or any other violation of the law but I lost my 2nd Amd. rights and can no longer own a firearm,vote or be elected to office.

I would like to know how many of you think that because after my probation ended,12years ago and I'm still concidered a felon.
Do you think I should not now have the same Fundimental Rights as YOU! :confused:

jahwarrior
April 13, 2007, 08:55 PM
no offense, but driving under the influence, not just once, but 3 times, shows a lack of judgement and a pattern of irresponsible behaviour. if you can't be trusted not to risk the lives of others, as well as put your own life in jeopardy, why should you be entrusted with a gun? i want to stress that this is not an attack of your character; i don't know you, and for all i know, you're totally reformed, and a saint. the simple fact is, owning a firearm is akin to driving a car: both require good judgement and responsible behaviour.

Art Eatman
April 13, 2007, 09:09 PM
But, jahwarrior, if a guy is clean for seventeen years, isn't that a pretty good indication of a turnaround into being a responsible person?

And, by and large, I think it's a reasonable attitude to hold that there is a difference between crimes which have the INTENT to harm, vs. crimes which MIGHT harm.

Art

Leagle
April 13, 2007, 09:33 PM
now if i had MY way of gun control i would instantly allow bb guns (not legal over here)
i would make everything (handguns, rifles, shotguns howitzers, rpgs, rocket launchers, tanks, grenades, single shots, semi autos and full autos) legal just a look at drivers liscence etc. and no criminal record

The Shootist
April 13, 2007, 09:42 PM
Jahwarrior

Yes! You are right, I admitted that I am an alcoholic but as Art E. has said I have been clean for 17 years and have never committed any other offense.
I wouldn't have wanted ME to have owned a gun at that time in my life either but should that now after being Married for 16yrs and raising 2 daughters and being a good citizen proclude me from having the rights everyone else proclaims.
I'm not trying to make excuses(I've addmitted Them) but the last DWI was actually in an apartment Parking Lot and I hadn't actually moved my Truck anywhere but I was stopped(thank God) and it was still considered driving while intoxicated in Texas. I Paid for my Offenses and don't think I should have to pay for the rest of my life when I've never hurt anyone.
I know I could have and I live with that every day, That's why I haven't had A drink in almost 18 yrs!
Can you say that? I know there's many of people out there that own guns,still drink and some even drive,they just haven't been caught yet! But I know I never will Again!

PS: jahwarrior You said having a gun is akin to driving a car but the State let me have my Drivers License back after just 2 years and finishing my alcohol program and jail sentence so why not my 2nd Adm.rights after almost 18years?

Thank You! Art Eatman

jahwarrior
April 13, 2007, 10:02 PM
like i said, i'm not judging you, i was just supplying a rationale. i myself have made bad decisions in the past, so don't think for a minute i don't sympathize with your plight. the difference is, i never got behind the wheel of a car drunk, nor have i ever been arrested for a felony offense. i think you're situation sucks, and i hope your rehabilitation is sincere. would moving to another state make a difference? i might try speaking to a pro 2A elected official in your area to see if you have any options. also, i wasn't speaking of intent, just a pattern of behaviour.

and, no, i don't drink. maybe the occasional gass of wine on a hot date, that's it.

JCF
April 13, 2007, 10:19 PM
I wouldn't have wanted ME to have owned a gun at that time in my life either but should that now after being Married for 16yrs and raising 2 daughters and being a good citizen proclude me from having the rights everyone else proclaims.

This is a problem as far as I am concerned, and one which I frankly do not have an answer for.

While I do not support gun control measures designed to prevent ownership by felons (for their simple inefficacy in the grand scheme of things), I nonetheless, like you, have a problem with demonstrably irresponsible and/or impaired individuals owning a firearm.

I agree that, if what you've stated is in actuality how it is, you've demonstrated personal responsibility and your rights should be intact. The problem is that if there is no measure in place to restrict those rights in the first place, then there is no way to address the issue one way or another.

I don't know that there is a clear answer.

Crunker1337
April 13, 2007, 10:45 PM
Violent criminals and murderers will be kept behind bars until they can prove they won't be a nuisance to society any more

The age of accountability would be 16 - you can drive, serve in the Armed Forces, and be responsible for your actions at that age

All people who turn 16 get to take a year or two off from school in order to receive militia training, first-aid training, disaster-relief training, and survival training. Serious physical or mental problem that may prevent an adult from taking part in these types of training will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

Age of accountability minimum for concealed carry
No minimum age for open carry
Businesses can have no weapons signs, but no laws will make any business off-limits while carrying
However, if you are prevented from carrying a weapon into a business and someone kills/injures you in that place, then the business is liable for reimbursement
Students can't carry in school buildings
No carrying in court unless you're a LEO

As violent criminals would be behind bars, there would be no need for background checks or licensing
However there will be an internet site that will have photos and descriptions of all wanted criminals/suspects that anyone selling a gun will have to check to make sure that they're not furnishing a wanted criminal with a weapon

For non man portable weapons as well as inherently dangerous explosives, you'd need to get a license for those as well as a secure place to store them. This license can be had at the age of accountability.

States would be barred from passing tougher gun laws

In order to stop violence in high-crime areas, there would be a military presence in all high-crime areas.

If you fire a weapon into an area without a backstop, you are responsible for whatever that bullet hits

No restrictions on less-than-lethal devices

Drugs and alcohol would be legal, but all mind-altering intoxicants must bear a LARGE warning symbol (skull). The ATF's website would have publications on the affects on all mind-altering intoxicants

TCB in TN
April 13, 2007, 11:12 PM
How does it “fix” them?

I am not sure if you caught it or not, but my presentation of these issues as problems was done with considerable sarcasm.

First of all, I DID pick up on your considerable sarcasm, as was evidenced by my sarcastic reply about your intelligence. :rolleyes: And as for the "how does it fix them, well the biggest issue being faced with sentencing recommendations and judicial descretion is that they are being applied by individuals who are more concerned with criminals rights than with victims rights. Put individuals in place who intend to punish violent offenders and neither is an issue.

With all due respect, I’m not sure what it is you do for a living, but I suspect that it hasn’t much to do with criminal justice. Do you understand what the implications are of a criminal justice / judicial system that is devoid of sentencing guidelines, judicial discretion, etc?

With all due respect, right back at you, I have a quite thorough understanding of the workings of our current "justice system" and to be honest those "workings" are a good bit of the problem.

Do you understand that while those facilities permit problematic and lax distribution of sentencing and justice, they also protect against unilaterally obtuse administration of rule of law? It is judicial discretion that permits, for example, the bench to render a decision which takes into account mitigating circumstances when a citizen deploys his weapon in defense of life.

This idea that the judge should be "legislating" from the bench is at the heart of many of the existing problems. IF good laws are on the books, then most of the instances you are talking about have NOTHING to do with the conversation that we are having.

It simply baffles me that persons can delude themselves into believing they are advocates of the 2A rights of the people whilst vociferously advocating the erosion, and in your case I'd go so far as to say the disassembly, of the the fundamental infrastructure, the checks and balances, that protects those rights.

What baffles me, is that people delude themselves into believing what we are seeing in the "Justice System" really has anything to do with "checks and balances" I mean the majority of threads here are about how poorly Judges are "interpreting" law. Put sound law into place and then have Judges follow it. Giving someone who "murders" someone a light sentence is a joke. If the judge doesn't believe the charges meet the crime then work with the DA and the defense to lesson the charges. Besides if good law is in place then you really will have a lessor chance of your scenerio occuring.



OK, exactly how is that ANY different than it is today? We HAVE a ton of folks already in jail today, just that we tend to let out the violent offenders and keep the white collar folks in there. We have LOTS of jails, already, we just need to re-purpose it in a more effective way.

While I agree with the general principle of what you are saying, your perspective is wildly, and I mean wildly, oversimplified.

Well first of all this IS the internet, how many substantial conversations about the real nuts and bolts of any subject are hashed out in this medium.:rolleyes: So over simplification IS par for the course. But since YOU are intent on shouting everyone down with the sheer vol. of your posts, I will do my best to respond to your post.

Beyond this, I’m not sure how much contact you’ve had with the population of the various facilities located around your area of the world, but if you honestly believe that they are housing a predominance of white collar offenders you are living in a fantasy.

It has been 3 or 4 years since I have visited either of the local regional correction facilities and probably 10 years since I visited the nearest Fed. facility but you have plenty of W/C and felons of victimless crime residing in them. Lots of drug USERS, a plenty of small time drug GROWERS, plenty of guys in for assault,rape, and murder as well. But I happen know of 2 locals who got out in the last 2 years. 1 spent 4 years in for growing pot, the other got out in 5 for manslaughter. (down from the attempted murder he was charged with but it saved the tax payers of the county SO much money on a trial!:cuss: :cuss: )


You may be right, but I can assure you that letting out all of these violent offenders ain't doing nothing for anyone. But if you really want to get down to brass tacks, there are a lot of inmates doing time for victimless crime. Letting those folks out sooner makes A LOT more sense than the way things are now.

No it doesn’t. Not necessarily.

When you actually have an understanding of the way that crime in this country works you begin to understand that the answers are not nearly as neat and simple as one might expect.


Lets see, you are saying that if you take away their guns these individuals will NOT commit these violent crimes?:scrutiny:

Perpetrators of “victimless” (which is in itself a highly contentious term) and non-violent crimes, incur on the people of this nation, by and large, a much higher toll than do the traditionally reviled violent offenders. We concentrate on violent offenders because of the immediately identifiable enormity of their actions. However, they represent the overwhelming minority of offenders overall. And when examined clinically, outside of emotion, it becomes apparent that our traditional beliefs and views of violent offenders do not necessarily coincide with reality.

Consider if you will:

Statuatory rapists are generally considered to be the most innocuous of sexual offenders. In fact many people believe that stat rape should not be considered a sexual offense at all. There is tremendous mythology regarding so and so’s neighbor’s brother, etc. who is a registered sex offender but has been married to his victim for the past twenty years.

First of all I said VICTIMLESS crime, last time I checked having sex with a "child" even a willing one is far from "victimless".


Incest offenders are generally reviled and there is a pervading belief that the most effective treatment is community based delivery of a Gold Dot to the temple.

YET… when we actually examine the statistics surrounding these offenders, we find that in fact incest offenders are often very amenable to treatment, very, very low likelihood of displaying recidivist behavior, very low likelihood of graduated re-offense, and low likelihood of further contact with the criminal justice system in general.

Stat rapists on the other hand are among the HIGHEST risk of sexual offenders in terms of recidivist behavior, they are among the HIGHEST risk of graduated sexual offending behavior, they have among the LOWEST level of success in treatment, and their victims self-report EQUIVALENT degrees of loss and injury as victims of incest and stranger rape.

So is it better to let out the perpetrator of the "victimless crime", or the child molester who "deserves to die"?

Just because one believes (and truly wants) an issue to be simple does not mean it actually is.

I completely agree with your final statement here and feel that you might need to go back and rev. some of what you are saying with that in mind.



It is not an issue of intelligence. It is an issue of exposure, consideration and understanding.

And the problem is not with the premise. The problem is with the principle underlying it.

The idea that removing guns from the hands of the populace will reduce crime presupposes that the problem of criminality is contingent upon the presence of an implement facilitating its display.

OK its the GUN that made me do it? :scrutiny: That is the premise or principle that you are buying into?

Most gun owners have successfully been able to wrap head around the idea that this is something of a thinking error. Part of the reason that they have done so is, in my personal opinion, convenience. I say that because a failure to transcend to that level of advanced thought places one in a position of being compromised in their ability to defend his or her right to own a firearm. There is inherent reward for doing your homework in this regard.

So mine is a failure to "relate to" and "understand" why a scumbag violates someone else? Or is it that I have not "advanced" or "transcended" to that that higher place where I can accept that MY having a weapon, the MEANS to defend myself and those I love, somehow excuses someone else's use of any weapon for evil? No sir I HAVE done my homework. I perfectly understand the "IDEA" that you are getting at, and I completely reject it at every level.

However, there is little impetus to move beyond this point. In fact it is convenient to remain there in that it eliminates the need to question much of the neatly packaged rhetoric that has been used to support the position of gun ownership. However for those people who are necessarily thrust into places where understanding the principles and mechanics of crime and justice is an imperative, this is simply not enough. It is not enough to hammer a fist and shout “do the crime, do the time” anymore. There needs to be better.

It is not convenience, it is one of the bases that our society is formed upon. The idea is that we have certain rights, like life, liberty and the...... well you know where this is going, and that if you WANT to remain a part of this society then you need to play by those rules. Those who don't should have to face the consequences. BTW I understand the principles and mechanics of crime JUST fine, and believe it or not, in spite of that I still believe that if you "do the crime then you should do the time!"

We run into a problem, as we do with the guns=crime argument, when we face the felons in jail=less crime argument.

Do you argue with the stats that more often than not violent offenders repeat? Well whether you do or not, is truly irrelavant to me, I do believe those stats and that coupled with several other things, harsh punishiment, reduces crime. Hey I may be wrong but I will feel much better if the effort was made TO prove me wrong.

The reason that we run into a problem is that the felons in jail=less crime argument also makes a presupposition. That presupposition is that the problem of criminality is an intrinsic component of the individual as opposed to the society.

Crime IS both a reflection of the society and the individual, and as such we certainly should attempt to improve the social factors that contribute, but we SHOULD NOT ignore the punishment of the individual either!

Basically, the idea that building more prisons and jailing more felons will reduce crime is contingent upon the concept that there is a finite, or at least stemmed, number of individuals in our society capable of the display of criminal behavior. It is based upon something of a martial model; the idea being that if we only get enough of them, if by attrition if by no other means, we will surely extinguish the larger problem.

Basically I am saying PROVE me wrong then, because for the last 30 years we have moved towards your line of thinking and our society is going to H@ll in a handbasket. In most circumstances those who obey the law do so for one of a couple a couple of reasons (or perhaps a combination of the two). You either do right because you believe in doing right or you are concerned about the consequences of doing wrong. Right now the consequences for doing wrong are less than I personally feel they should be.

This is an overly simplistic and shortsighted response to a very, very complex and pervasive social problem.

It ignores the fact that the problem of crime is not a problem of the individual per se, but one of the community. It ignors the fact that criminality is a condition created and propogated through a process of continuous manufacture. It is not innate. Our society, and the conditions herein, have become conducive to the production of persons willing to display criminal behavior. It is going to take much, much, much more than a bunch of prisons and "tough on crime" judges and pols to fix this problem.

I agree that long term many things need to change, but again if we need to build a WHOLE bunch of prisons to protect the law abiding from the law breaking then I have NO problem with that. Because ignoring the individual who trasgresses will NOT improve things. You are spouting a lot of psychological ideas that may or may not be right. One thing that has pretty much been by Pavlov's dog, is that rewarding behavior certainly encourages it. Right now we are making crime "PAY".

We cannot hold the community responsible for the actions of the individual exclusively, but we also cannot address the problem in a vacuum exclusive of initiatives to address the underlying social maladies leading to rampant displays of criminality.

You are correct that we cannot hold the entire community responsible, but right now we are hardly holding the individual responsible either. All the rest of this is just making excuses for those who refuse to abide by the rules of our society.

The argument you have forwarded is a very, very commonly held, but horrifically flawed, one.

There is no ”simple” solution TCB. The problem of crime in this country is a PROFOUNDLY complex web of economics, politics, morals, ethics, religion, race, gender,, etc., etc., etc.

No amount of protestation, no mass of prison cells, no amount of caterwauling and homespun remedies by Charlie Daniels is going to make that any different.[/QUOTE]

Psycho babble aside, I agree that crime is a profound problem that has MANY different things at it's root, and I will be more than happy to agree that there are a NUMBER of things that our society can do to improve reduce many of the factors that contribute to crime, but flawed as I and my thinking may be, coddling those who commit violent crime is NOT among them, and I feel for those individuals who delude themselves to the point that they feel it will.:(

JCF
April 14, 2007, 01:59 AM
edit. duplicate post.

JCF
April 14, 2007, 02:06 AM
First of all, I DID pick up on your considerable sarcasm, as was evidenced by my sarcastic reply about your intelligence.

I see. Well… I’m sorry to have let you down. I’ll work harder to live up to your standards TCB.

And as for the "how does it fix them, well the biggest issue being faced with sentencing recommendations and judicial descretion is that they are being applied by individuals who are more concerned with criminals rights than with victims rights. Put individuals in place who intend to punish violent offenders and neither is an issue.

So it is your contention that our judges and legislators are pro-crime? You'll forgive me if I consider that a bit cliche. Given the fact that the overall prison population in America has doubled in the past twenty-five years, there are more classes of crimes on the books than ever before, we execute on par with countries like Yemen, and our sentencing and term completion rates are overall among the most stringent on the planet... just what do you base that position on?

Quote:
With all due respect, I’m not sure what it is you do for a living, but I suspect that it hasn’t much to do with criminal justice. Do you understand what the implications are of a criminal justice / judicial system that is devoid of sentencing guidelines, judicial discretion, etc?
With all due respect, right back at you, I have a quite thorough understanding of the workings of our current "justice system" and to be honest those "workings" are a good bit of the problem.

So do you understand what the implications would be of a judicial/criminal justice system that is devoid of sentencing guidelines, judicial discretion, etc.?


This idea that the judge should be "legislating" from the bench is at the heart of many of the existing problems. IF good laws are on the books, then most of the instances you are talking about have NOTHING to do with the conversation that we are having.

You believe that it is possible to install legislators capable of instating only “good laws” which will remain only “good laws” to the extent that there is no need to permit contingencies?

Do you understand the potential implications this has for gun owners in America TCB?

What baffles me, is that people delude themselves into believing what we are seeing in the "Justice System" really has anything to do with "checks and balances"

These checks and balances are exercised daily TCB. The fact that you do not personally see or understand them does not preclude their existence.

I mean the majority of threads here are about how poorly Judges are "interpreting" law. Put sound law into place and then have Judges follow it. Giving someone who "murders" someone a light sentence is a joke. If the judge doesn't believe the charges meet the crime then work with the DA and the defense to lesson the charges. Besides if good law is in place then you really will have a lessor chance of your scenerio occuring.

You can’t do what you are suggesting in the absence of judicial discretion, sentencing guidelines, etc.. TCB. The laws become static and unilateral.


Well first of all this IS the internet, how many substantial conversations about the real nuts and bolts of any subject are hashed out in this medium. So over simplification IS par for the course. But since YOU are intent on shouting everyone down with the sheer vol. of your posts, I will do my best to respond to your post.

There is myriad substantive discourse taking place on this very forum daily TCB. Just because it is the internet shouldn’t make one lazy and complacent.

Beyond this, I have no desire to “shout” you or anyone else down with volume. If one wishes to engage in the discussion and debate of complex issues however it is sometimes necessary to commit to reading more than a comic strip editorial. Sometimes it is even necessary to open books.

It has been 3 or 4 years since I have visited either of the local regional correction facilities and probably 10 years since I visited the nearest Fed. facility but you have plenty of W/C and felons of victimless crime residing in them. Lots of drug USERS, a plenty of small time drug GROWERS, plenty of guys in for assault,rape, and murder as well. But I happen know of 2 locals who got out in the last 2 years. 1 spent 4 years in for growing pot, the other got out in 5 for manslaughter. (down from the attempted murder he was charged with but it saved the tax payers of the county SO much money on a trial! )

LOL… first of all, there is a manifest difference between a white collar criminal and a drug offender. Secondly, if you consider a white collar criminal to be a victimless offender or one who poses little risk to society you have an exceptionally underdeveloped understanding of the reality of crime in America. It would probably benefit you greatly to do some tangible research into the impact of white collar crime.

All this aside, if you were to actually do that research you would quickly learn that white collar criminals represent a thin minority of the overall prison population in this country: predominantly due to the availability of advanced legal defense, and the skewed perception of the populace that they are no threat to the community.

Insofar as drug offenders go, I agree that many should not be incarcerated.
Nonetheless, most of them are not the innocuous and persecuted outlaws that much of society likes to portray them to be. To describe their crimes as “victimless” is at best specious. It would turn the stomachs of the better part of society to see what the impact of these people’s behavior actually is. I suspect that most people would be exceptionally reluctant to turn the key if they were actually put in the place of making the decision to release these folks.

Quote:
Quote:
You may be right, but I can assure you that letting out all of these violent offenders ain't doing nothing for anyone. But if you really want to get down to brass tacks, there are a lot of inmates doing time for victimless crime. Letting those folks out sooner makes A LOT more sense than the way things are now.
No it doesn’t. Not necessarily.

When you actually have an understanding of the way that crime in this country works you begin to understand that the answers are not nearly as neat and simple as one might expect.
Lets see, you are saying that if you take away their guns these individuals will NOT commit these violent crimes?

No. I am not saying that.
???


Quote:
Perpetrators of “victimless” (which is in itself a highly contentious term) and non-violent crimes, incur on the people of this nation, by and large, a much higher toll than do the traditionally reviled violent offenders. We concentrate on violent offenders because of the immediately identifiable enormity of their actions. However, they represent the overwhelming minority of offenders overall. And when examined clinically, outside of emotion, it becomes apparent that our traditional beliefs and views of violent offenders do not necessarily coincide with reality.

Consider if you will:

Statuatory rapists are generally considered to be the most innocuous of sexual offenders. In fact many people believe that stat rape should not be considered a sexual offense at all. There is tremendous mythology regarding so and so’s neighbor’s brother, etc. who is a registered sex offender but has been married to his victim for the past twenty years.
First of all I said VICTIMLESS crime, last time I checked having sex with a "child" even a willing one is far from "victimless".

I agree with you. Wholeheartedly. Yet there is an enormous part of society that does not agree with US. That will create a problem for your legislators TCB will it not? Unless of course you foresee yourself our Emperor or the like... in which case these problems will be easily resolved.

What exactly are the “victimless crimes” you are referencing that are taking up all our prison resources?

Quote:
Incest offenders are generally reviled and there is a pervading belief that the most effective treatment is community based delivery of a Gold Dot to the temple.

YET… when we actually examine the statistics surrounding these offenders, we find that in fact incest offenders are often very amenable to treatment, very, very low likelihood of displaying recidivist behavior, very low likelihood of graduated re-offense, and low likelihood of further contact with the criminal justice system in general.

Stat rapists on the other hand are among the HIGHEST risk of sexual offenders in terms of recidivist behavior, they are among the HIGHEST risk of graduated sexual offending behavior, they have among the LOWEST level of success in treatment, and their victims self-report EQUIVALENT degrees of loss and injury as victims of incest and stranger rape.

So is it better to let out the perpetrator of the "victimless crime", or the child molester who "deserves to die"?

Just because one believes (and truly wants) an issue to be simple does not mean it actually is.
I completely agree with your final statement here and feel that you might need to go back and rev. some of what you are saying with that in mind.


???

What have I suggested to be a simple issue?



The idea that removing guns from the hands of the populace will reduce crime presupposes that the problem of criminality is contingent upon the presence of an implement facilitating its display.
OK its the GUN that made me do it? That is the premise or principle that you are buying into?

It is neither. And I am advocating neither. The point I am trying to illustrate is that the premises as presented are irrelevant… one cannot address their validity when the underlying principles are as flawed as those discussed.

Quote:
Most gun owners have successfully been able to wrap head around the idea that this is something of a thinking error. Part of the reason that they have done so is, in my personal opinion, convenience. I say that because a failure to transcend to that level of advanced thought places one in a position of being compromised in their ability to defend his or her right to own a firearm. There is inherent reward for doing your homework in this regard.
So mine is a failure to "relate to" and "understand" why a scumbag violates someone else?

No.
???

Or is it that I have not "advanced" or "transcended" to that that higher place where I can accept that MY having a weapon, the MEANS to defend myself and those I love, somehow excuses someone else's use of any weapon for evil? No sir I HAVE done my homework. I perfectly understand the "IDEA" that you are getting at, and I completely reject it at every level.

You’ve completely lost me. I’m not sure what you are interpreting as the “IDEA” I am getting at, but it isn’t in any way associable to me with the previous several sentences you’ve typed. Could you please enlighten me?


It is not convenience, it is one of the bases that our society is formed upon. The idea is that we have certain rights, like life, liberty and the...... well you know where this is going, and that if you WANT to remain a part of this society then you need to play by those rules. Those who don't should have to face the consequences. BTW I understand the principles and mechanics of crime JUST fine, and believe it or not, in spite of that I still believe that if you "do the crime then you should do the time!"

I do too. But that is not enough. There needs to be MORE.

I think you may be assigning me a position on this matter that I don’t actually occupy. Perhaps a more careful reread is in order. I also think it is necessary to adopt stiff penalties for crime. What I am suggesting to you is that this is not in and of itself the answer, nor is it enough. Given the fact that the nature of crime in this country is such that prisons will be filled at the rate of availability, it is also not feasible nor responsible to advocate MORE incarceration.

Do you argue with the stats that more often than not violent offenders repeat? Well whether you do or not, is truly irrelavant to me, I do believe those stats and that coupled with several other things, harsh punishiment, reduces crime. Hey I may be wrong but I will feel much better if the effort was made TO prove me wrong.

That is not the point of the statement I made, but I’d be pleased to address it for you anyway.

No I do not argue with the stats.

But the fact that the system has incarcerated a violent offender does not equate to a concurrent, correlative, or correspondent drop in violent crime. The causality remains. It is possible to control crime on a cellular level through vigorous enforcement, but it only results in displacement, not resolution.

Crime IS both a reflection of the society and the individual, and as such we certainly should attempt to improve the social factors that contribute, but we SHOULD NOT ignore the punishment of the individual either!

I am not suggesting that we do. I am suggesting that we not over prioritize it to the detriment of society in order to lull ourselves into false security.

Basically I am saying PROVE me wrong then, because for the last 30 years we have moved towards your line of thinking and our society is going to H@ll in a handbasket.

Sorry TCB. This statement, although very popular, is just simple BS.

The USA incarcerates more people, in more prisons, for longer periods of time, for more classes of crime, with the blessing of a greater portion of society than virtually any other nation in the world, and more than any other period in its’ history.

It was on its way to hell long before anyone actually put any thought into it, and largely because no one put any thought into it.

What has happened is that there has been a concurrent evolution of academic discourse alongside this process which is attempting to understand why the system isn’t working. This recent process has been conveniently scapegoated as the cause of the failure of a system that has been rotting progressively for over a century.

In most circumstances those who obey the law do so for one of a couple a couple of reasons (or perhaps a combination of the two). You either do right because you believe in doing right or you are concerned about the consequences of doing wrong. Right now the consequences for doing wrong are less than I personally feel they should be.

Punitive deterrence has never been proven to be a success TCB. My beloved state incarcerates and executes en masse and it still can’t seem to convince anyone that it’s not in their best interest to kill other people.

Good luck with that way of thinking though.


Quote:
This is an overly simplistic and shortsighted response to a very, very complex and pervasive social problem.

I agree that long term many things need to change, but again if we need to build a WHOLE bunch of prisons to protect the law abiding from the law breaking then I have NO problem with that.

You should. Because we don’t NEED to. And we can’t AFFORD to. And once they are here they are going to fill up and not going to go anywhere. That TCB is the problem.

Because ignoring the individual who trasgresses will NOT improve things. You are spouting a lot of psychological ideas that may or may not be right.

I am not advocating ignoring the individual. Psychological ideas? What psychological ideas? Explain these assertions to me if you would.

One thing that has pretty much been by Pavlov's dog, is that rewarding behavior certainly encourages it. Right now we are making crime "PAY".

How? How are we doing so any more than ever before?


You are correct that we cannot hold the entire community responsible, but right now we are hardly holding the individual responsible either. All the rest of this is just making excuses for those who refuse to abide by the rules of our society.

How am I making excuses for anyone? Please clarify this. I am advocating a higher level of overall accountability. It appears to me more that YOU do not wish to own any responsibility for your community’s well-being, preferring instead to take an approach vested solely in blame.


Psycho babble aside,

Again… please explain this to me.

I agree that crime is a profound problem that has MANY different things at it's root, and I will be more than happy to agree that there are a NUMBER of things that our society can do to improve reduce many of the factors that contribute to crime, but flawed as I and my thinking may be, coddling those who commit violent crime is NOT among them, and I feel for those individuals who delude themselves to the point that they feel it will.

I’ve NEVER advocated coddling violent offenders. Quite the contrary. Please demonstrate where you are deriving this position from.

jmabbott888@aol.com
April 14, 2007, 02:18 AM
Here's one for ya.... All weapons legal if you pass an IMMEDIATE background check. Reason I say this is I can go to my local court webpage & search for a name & up comes their record in that court. I'm pretty sure the national gobermint has that ability, or how would they do our checks now. The only weapons band are those you or your vehicle cannot move AKA nuke submarines, aircraft carriers, tanks (unless you can feed it gas lol) etc. Only places you can't carry is in court, & maybe bars ( you hand weapon to bartender to be returned when you leave). If you come up as a child molester on the check the gunshop can "violate" you with a 45 or better on the spot. Anyone else think of any crimes that need to be on the "violate" list?

TCB in TN
April 14, 2007, 03:53 AM
Quote:
And as for the "how does it fix them, well the biggest issue being faced with sentencing recommendations and judicial descretion is that they are being applied by individuals who are more concerned with criminals rights than with victims rights. Put individuals in place who intend to punish violent offenders and neither is an issue.

So it is your contention that our judges and legislators are pro-crime? You'll forgive me if I consider that a bit cliche. Given the fact that the overall prison population in America has doubled in the past twenty-five years, there are more classes of crimes on the books than ever before, we execute on par with countries like Yemen, and our sentencing and term completion rates are overall among the most stringent on the planet... just what do you base that position on?

I am beginning to question your reading comprehension. I never said we did not NEED sentencing guidelins or judicial descretion just that we needed to put people in place who would do a significanly better job with them. :rolleyes:


With all due respect, I’m not sure what it is you do for a living, but I suspect that it hasn’t much to do with criminal justice. Do you understand what the implications are of a criminal justice / judicial system that is devoid of sentencing guidelines, judicial discretion, etc?

With all due respect, right back at you, I have a quite thorough understanding of the workings of our current "justice system" and to be honest those "workings" are a good bit of the problem.

So do you understand what the implications would be of a judicial/criminal justice system that is devoid of sentencing guidelines, judicial discretion, etc.?

Again see above.


This idea that the judge should be "legislating" from the bench is at the heart of many of the existing problems. IF good laws are on the books, then most of the instances you are talking about have NOTHING to do with the conversation that we are having.

You believe that it is possible to install legislators capable of instating only “good laws” which will remain only “good laws” to the extent that there is no need to permit contingencies? Do you understand the potential implications this has for gun owners in America TCB?

I believe we have a far better chance of installing decent legislators than I do of getting rid of appointed for life Federal Judges. And I certainly do understand the implications for gun owners. Outside the possible (as of yet un-proven) gains in SCOTUS, and a smattering of semi positive legal rulings in the last couple of years, we as gun owners have made our gains, as meager as they are through legislation much more so than through the court system.



Quote:
What baffles me, is that people delude themselves into believing what we are seeing in the "Justice System" really has anything to do with "checks and balances"

These checks and balances are exercised daily TCB. The fact that you do not personally see or understand them does not preclude their existence.

Again, I see we have made MANY times the number of gains from the legislative side. Were the "checks and balances" really working then we would not be in the shape we are today.




I mean the majority of threads here are about how poorly Judges are "interpreting" law. Put sound law into place and then have Judges follow it. Giving someone who "murders" someone a light sentence is a joke. If the judge doesn't believe the charges meet the crime then work with the DA and the defense to lesson the charges. Besides if good law is in place then you really will have a lessor chance of your scenerio occuring.

You can’t do what you are suggesting in the absence of judicial discretion, sentencing guidelines, etc.. TCB. The laws become static and unilateral.

Again read what was written.



Well first of all this IS the internet, how many substantial conversations about the real nuts and bolts of any subject are hashed out in this medium. So over simplification IS par for the course. But since YOU are intent on shouting everyone down with the sheer vol. of your posts, I will do my best to respond to your post.

There is myriad substantive discourse taking place on this very forum daily TCB. Just because it is the internet shouldn’t make one lazy and complacent.

I personally, come to the www as something to kill a little time to enjoy our selves and to possibly throw out a few idea. The "Big Picture" discussion is usually good enough for most people out here. Most of my REAL political discussion occurs face to face, here in my "grass roots" area, or on the phone with my State or Fed. legislators. If that makes me lazy or complacent
then I guess I owe you and everyone else here a big "I am sorry."


Beyond this, I have no desire to “shout” you or anyone else down with volume. If one wishes to engage in the discussion and debate of complex issues however it is sometimes necessary to commit to reading more than a comic strip editorial. Sometimes it is even necessary to open books.

REALLY are they big books, or just little ones, how bout pictures do they have those in 'em too?

:
It has been 3 or 4 years since I have visited either of the local regional correction facilities and probably 10 years since I visited the nearest Fed. facility but you have plenty of W/C and felons of victimless crime residing in them. Lots of drug USERS, a plenty of small time drug GROWERS, plenty of guys in for assault,rape, and murder as well. But I happen know of 2 locals who got out in the last 2 years. 1 spent 4 years in for growing pot, the other got out in 5 for manslaughter. (down from the attempted murder he was charged with but it saved the tax payers of the county SO much money on a trial! )

LOL… first of all, there is a manifest difference between a white collar criminal and a drug offender. Secondly, if you consider a white collar criminal to be a victimless offender or one who poses little risk to society you have an exceptionally underdeveloped understanding of the reality of crime in America. It would probably benefit you greatly to do some tangible research into the impact of white collar crime.

If you will go back and read my initial thread I mentioned White Collar, and victimless crime in two seperate parts of my comments, YOU were the one who brought the two together in an assumption that I do not understand the difference between the two. Again I cannot help YOUR assumptions.

All this aside, if you were to actually do that research you would quickly learn that white collar criminals represent a thin minority of the overall prison population in this country: predominantly due to the availability of advanced legal defense, and the skewed perception of the populace that they are no threat to the community.

Insofar as drug offenders go, I agree that many should not be incarcerated.
Nonetheless, most of them are not the innocuous and persecuted outlaws that much of society likes to portray them to be. To describe their crimes as “victimless” is at best specious. It would turn the stomachs of the better part of society to see what the impact of these people’s behavior actually is. I suspect that most people would be exceptionally reluctant to turn the key if they were actually put in the place of making the decision to release these folks.

So the description of "victimless" is specious at best, well if you are going to go onto the whole gun's facilitating crime thread then how about following your own logic to the natural conclusion about "victimless" crime. By making the recreational use of drugs illegal you "facilitate" the formation of an entire criminal drug industry, and rather than taxation and regulation of the industry by the Government you end up with a new manufactured class of felony criminals. I personally do not, nor have I ever done illegal drugs, in fact I seldom even drink a beer, but even I with my faulty logic and lack of a transcendent state of being I understand that were pot, and some other illegal drugs made legal, then much of the problem goes away, and the resources currently used to fight those crimes could be re-purposed towards
"greater evils."


I agree with you. Wholeheartedly. Yet there is an enormous part of society that does not agree with US. That will create a problem for your legislators TCB will it not? Unless of course you foresee yourself our Emperor or the like... in which case these problems will be easily resolved.

Well this thread is exactly that IF I were Emperor then I would be able to do exactly as I see fit. That is one of the things you seem to be missing. This thread is exactly about that very thing.

What exactly are the “victimless crimes” you are referencing that are taking up all our prison resources?

I have not recently looked at the figures but I have seen different number putting the % of people in prison for drug usage/selling/etc at anywhere from near 25% to 70%. Depending upon their definition. So after legalization and regulation impacts the street market, and those drug related violent offenders in the system are gone I would imagine that I would free up a significant about of our resources in the long run.


Incest offenders are generally reviled and there is a pervading belief that the most effective treatment is community based delivery of a Gold Dot to the temple.

YET… when we actually examine the statistics surrounding these offenders, we find that in fact incest offenders are often very amenable to treatment, very, very low likelihood of displaying recidivist behavior, very low likelihood of graduated re-offense, and low likelihood of further contact with the criminal justice system in general.

Stat rapists on the other hand are among the HIGHEST risk of sexual offenders in terms of recidivist behavior, they are among the HIGHEST risk of graduated sexual offending behavior, they have among the LOWEST level of success in treatment, and their victims self-report EQUIVALENT degrees of loss and injury as victims of incest and stranger rape.

So is it better to let out the perpetrator of the "victimless crime", or the child molester who "deserves to die"?


Just because one believes (and truly wants) an issue to be simple does not mean it actually is.

I completely agree with your final statement here and feel that you might need to go back and rev. some of what you are saying with that in mind.

???
From your statement you feel that the majority of the focus need to be on society and cultural issues. The path you are taking leads to Government involvement in the home, further involvement in the schools, and an even further expansion of the Nanny State. Society can only be fixed from within, social experimentation to "improve" the state that man lives in, and helps to remedy the wrongs of our society are not possible in a free country. Only in a system where the state rules all aspects of life can it even attempt such a thing. That is something that I personally do not want, need, or feel that anyone should begin to try and implement.


The idea that removing guns from the hands of the populace will reduce crime presupposes that the problem of criminality is contingent upon the presence of an implement facilitating its display
OK its the GUN that made me do it? That is the premise or principle that you are buying into?

It is neither. And I am advocating neither. The point I am trying to illustrate is that the premises as presented are irrelevant… one cannot address their validity when the underlying principles are as flawed as those discussed.

But it is not even close to an apples to apples comparison. There is a HUGE flaw in the logic. If I want to commit a violent crime I do not need to use a gun, I can use a knife, or bat, or brick, or bomb, or a pc of piano wife, where as the commision of a crime, by definition requires a criminal

Most gun owners have successfully been able to wrap head around the idea that this is something of a thinking error. Part of the reason that they have done so is, in my personal opinion, convenience. I say that because a failure to transcend to that level of advanced thought places one in a position of being compromised in their ability to defend his or her right to own a firearm. There is inherent reward for doing your homework in this regard.

So mine is a failure to "relate to" and "understand" why a scumbag violates someone else?

No.
???


Or is it that I have not "advanced" or "transcended" to that that higher place where I can accept that MY having a weapon, the MEANS to defend myself and those I love, somehow excuses someone else's use of any weapon for evil? No sir I HAVE done my homework. I perfectly understand the "IDEA" that you are getting at, and I completely reject it at every level.

You’ve completely lost me. I’m not sure what you are interpreting as the “IDEA” I am getting at, but it isn’t in any way associable to me with the previous several sentences you’ve typed. Could you please enlighten me?

If that is not your point then please explain exactly where you are going with this, as I cannot understand your logic. I know from a moral standpoint my RKBA is sound and I can defend it, I know from a common sense standpoint the logic is solid, as looking back through history those w/o arms have not fared so well. Further more those great men who founded this nation made it pretty clear that they thought it was a good idea, so I intend to go with that also. So when I hear you beginning to go all transcendental on me, all I can figure is that we are about to "feel someone pain" or something.


It is not convenience, it is one of the bases that our society is formed upon. The idea is that we have certain rights, like life, liberty and the...... well you know where this is going, and that if you WANT to remain a part of this society then you need to play by those rules. Those who don't should have to face the consequences. BTW I understand the principles and mechanics of crime JUST fine, and believe it or not, in spite of that I still believe that if you "do the crime then you should do the time!"

I do too. But that is not enough. There needs to be MORE.

Before going forward, WHY, does there need to be more?
Personal responsibility, being willing to work for things, self control, self sacrifice, working to build for the future. Having respect for one's self and those around you. Those are laudable goals, but again WHO is going to instill these into our society?

I think you may be assigning me a position on this matter that I don’t actually occupy. Perhaps a more careful reread is in order. I also think it is necessary to adopt stiff penalties for crime. What I am suggesting to you is that this is not in and of itself the answer, nor is it enough. Given the fact that the nature of crime in this country is such that prisons will be filled at the rate of availability, it is also not feasible nor responsible to advocate MORE incarceration.

I have went back and re-read your position and I am still not convinced. As I have said above, I DO think that both More and more selective incarceration are both feasible and warrented.


Do you argue with the stats that more often than not violent offenders repeat? Well whether you do or not, is truly irrelavant to me, I do believe those stats and that coupled with several other things, harsh punishiment, reduces crime. Hey I may be wrong but I will feel much better if the effort was made TO prove me wrong.

That is not the point of the statement I made, but I’d be pleased to address it for you anyway.

No I do not argue with the stats.

But the fact that the system has incarcerated a violent offender does not equate to a concurrent, correlative, or correspondent drop in violent crime. The causality remains. It is possible to control crime on a cellular level through vigorous enforcement, but it only results in displacement, not resolution.

I agree there is not currently a strict causal relationship between an increase in incareration and violent crime occurances. IMHO there are a couple of reasons for that. First is as mentioned about, the current illegal drug infrastructure. For far to many of our low income citizens that market seems to be the best ticket out. Ridding our streets of that "easy money" will make the idea of education much more palatable to those masses. Second is prison itself. While currently not a "great" place, it certainly isn't what it was 40 year ago. Prison today is well, easy. Other than the loss of freedom prison is looked on as a decent existence, after all they feed you cloth you, hey you even get a gym and TV in many places. For many folks I have spoke with it is a better life than any they ever had before. Make prison BAD again and I believe you will see more of a deterrent. Add to that a REAL sentence for violent offenders and I believe you WILL make inroads into the problem.

TCB in TN
April 14, 2007, 03:54 AM
Quote:
Crime IS both a reflection of the society and the individual, and as such we certainly should attempt to improve the social factors that contribute, but we SHOULD NOT ignore the punishment of the individual either!

I am not suggesting that we do. I am suggesting that we not over prioritize it to the detriment of society in order to lull ourselves into false security.

OK I will bite on this one, how can you "fix society's ills" w/o further expanding the "Nanny State?"

Quote:
Basically I am saying PROVE me wrong then, because for the last 30 years we have moved towards your line of thinking and our society is going to H@ll in a handbasket.

Sorry TCB. This statement, although very popular, is just simple BS.

Really well I guess you and I will have to agree to disagree on that one.


The USA incarcerates more people, in more prisons, for longer periods of time, for more classes of crime, with the blessing of a greater portion of society than virtually any other nation in the world, and more than any other period in its’ history.

It was on its way to hell long before anyone actually put any thought into it, and largely because no one put any thought into it.

What has happened is that there has been a concurrent evolution of academic discourse alongside this process which is attempting to understand why the system isn’t working. This recent process has been conveniently scapegoated as the cause of the failure of a system that has been rotting progressively for over a century.

We certainly do, and many of them are both the wrong ones, and for the wrong reasons, as I mentioned above.

Quote:
In most circumstances those who obey the law do so for one of a couple a couple of reasons (or perhaps a combination of the two). You either do right because you believe in doing right or you are concerned about the consequences of doing wrong. Right now the consequences for doing wrong are less than I personally feel they should be.

Punitive deterrence has never been proven to be a success TCB. My beloved state incarcerates and executes en masse and it still can’t seem to convince anyone that it’s not in their best interest to kill other people.

Good luck with that way of thinking though.

Really, it doesn't work, has never been proven to be a success. :scrutiny: Well do YOU break the law? WHY? Punitive deterrence does work for some, doesn't for others, especially when the punishment is seen as less than robust, so I somewhat agree and yet it does have one advantage though, those who are not detterred are then detained, which does provide a certain level of safety for the rest of society.

Quote:
This is an overly simplistic and shortsighted response to a very, very complex and pervasive social problem.


Quote:
I agree that long term many things need to change, but again if we need to build a WHOLE bunch of prisons to protect the law abiding from the law breaking then I have NO problem with that.

You should. Because we don’t NEED to. And we can’t AFFORD to. And once they are here they are going to fill up and not going to go anywhere. That TCB is the problem.

Really, we don't NEED to. I just don't buy that. If your idea is right, then why do we even have prisons at all? No we do need serious prison time and even execution for those individuals who refuse to abide by the minimum standards of society.


Quote:
Because ignoring the individual who trasgresses will NOT improve things. You are spouting a lot of psychological ideas that may or may not be right.

I am not advocating ignoring the individual.

Again it sure sounds a lot like it.

Psychological ideas? What psychological ideas? Explain these assertions to me if you would.

Certainly, it sounds as if you are speaking of dealing with crime at a societal level. There are plenty of theories out there right now about the collective soul or the nation (or some crap like that). The basic premise is that if you can fix enough of society's ill's that most of the problems go away. Much like the current push by the AMA to be involved in "forcing" people to eat healthy, avoid risky behaviors (including gun owner ship). The problem with all of these ideas is that while they sound good on paper, they don't work. They fail just like the biggest social experiment the world has ever seen. (USSR)

Quote:
One thing that has pretty much been by Pavlov's dog, is that rewarding behavior certainly encourages it. Right now we are making crime "PAY".

How? How are we doing so any more than ever before?

Lets see, in most parts of the country we have made sheep out of so many of the people that they cannot even fathom self defense. Criminals all over the nation EXPECT that they will meet no resistence and they are more often than not correct in that assumption, this is borne out in the rise in home invasions, car jackings, and other violent crime. Most criminals are just not afraid of citizens or the justice system at this point. IF they do happen to get caught they end up in a prison system that is really not that bad, for what more often than not ends up being not such a long time. So I believe we have made crime begin to pay.


Quote:
You are correct that we cannot hold the entire community responsible, but right now we are hardly holding the individual responsible either. All the rest of this is just making excuses for those who refuse to abide by the rules of our society.

How am I making excuses for anyone? Please clarify this. I am advocating a higher level of overall accountability. It appears to me more that YOU do not wish to own any responsibility for your community’s well-being, preferring instead to take an approach vested solely in blame.

See above.


Quote:
Psycho babble aside,

Again… please explain this to me.


Quote:
I agree that crime is a profound problem that has MANY different things at it's root, and I will be more than happy to agree that there are a NUMBER of things that our society can do to improve reduce many of the factors that contribute to crime, but flawed as I and my thinking may be, coddling those who commit violent crime is NOT among them, and I feel for those individuals who delude themselves to the point that they feel it will.

I’ve NEVER advocated coddling violent offenders. Quite the contrary. Please demonstrate where you are deriving this position from.

Maybe you are right, perhaps I am naive but your insistence on finding a solution to crime at a societal level (which I don't believe can be artificially engineered), and your staunch resistence to heftier punishment for violent offenders points me to that conclusion.

JCF
April 14, 2007, 07:27 PM
I am beginning to question your reading comprehension. I never said we did not NEED sentencing guidelins or judicial descretion just that we needed to put people in place who would do a significanly better job with them.

I see…

So flexibility in interpretation and administration of the law is in and of itself NOT a problem then. In fact what IS a problem is the actual substance of those interpretations and decisions. Am I getting that right?

So tell me what kind of a “significantly better job” needs to be done? I mean rhetoric and clichés aside… specifically.



I believe we have a far better chance of installing decent legislators than I do of getting rid of appointed for life Federal Judges. And I certainly do understand the implications for gun owners. Outside the possible (as of yet un-proven) gains in SCOTUS, and a smattering of semi positive legal rulings in the last couple of years, we as gun owners have made our gains, as meager as they are through legislation much more so than through the court system.

Well, I think the truth in your statement may be somewhat contextual. While binding state and federal legislation certainly comprises the face of 2A rights in our country, one might be careful however not to quite so quickly discount the impact of the decisions made by our DA’s, judges, and grand juries in addressing the actual cases that are presented to them on a daily basis. The 2A friendly legislation implemented by state and federal legislators does very little to influence the decision not to prosecute the citizen who rightfully, but unlawfully, deployed his concealed weapon against an attacker. Yet those kinds of decisions are made, unseen, regularly in DA’s offices and courtrooms around this country by the same judges and DA’s who understand that vigorous full-scale prosecution and incarceration of every violent felony charge is NOT in the best interest of the community in the long run.


Again, I see we have made MANY times the number of gains from the legislative side. Were the "checks and balances" really working then we would not be in the shape we are today.

Do you really think so? Or do you think that perhaps, just maybe, our justice system might have already collapsed upon itself several decades ago? Perhaps our 2A rights might have already succumbed to the onslaught of peace and safety initiatives that pervaded the past 40 years? How many nebulous and obtuse rule of law convictions do you suppose would have been rendered as a result?


So the description of "victimless" is specious at best, well if you are going to go onto the whole gun's facilitating crime thread then how about following your own logic to the natural conclusion about "victimless" crime. By making the recreational use of drugs illegal you "facilitate" the formation of an entire criminal drug industry, and rather than taxation and regulation of the industry by the Government you end up with a new manufactured class of felony criminals. I personally do not, nor have I ever done illegal drugs, in fact I seldom even drink a beer, but even I with my faulty logic and lack of a transcendent state of being I understand that were pot, and some other illegal drugs made legal, then much of the problem goes away, and the resources currently used to fight those crimes could be re-purposed towards
"greater evils."

First of all, I am sorry that you are so very exceptionally put off by my use of the term “transcend”. I assure you that there is no specific associable philosophical value to the term. I at no time referenced a “transcendent state of being”. Please feel free to replace the term with whatever word or group of words that make you more personally comfortable. You might try surpass, exceed, move beyond, git up yonder from, etc… It is really doesn’t impact our discussion. I would be pleased to make similar accommodations for any other words or phrases that might you mad.

Secondly, while I agree with you that many drug crimes should not be so categorized, the objective reality of the situation is that our criminal justice system has been gradually moving away from carceral sanctions of low grade drug crime since the mid-late 1980’s. The irony is that the greatest objection to this has come from the “tough on crime” advocates who feel strongly that the only method of controlling America’s drug problem is… you guessed it… punitive deterrence.

The majority of drug criminals that are entering the system currently are going in for much higher grade offenses (distribution of cocaine, manufacture of methamphetamine, etc.). When you actually examine the statistics, the United States incarcerates a relatively very small number of people for marijuana related offenses any longer. The majority of those who do go in for pot offenses are now distributors, growers, etc., but they are miniscule compared to the meth and cocaine dealers.

Also… when you have any experience with the system you quickly learn that low grade drug offenses are quite frequently used as the basis for the incarceration of gang affiliated offenders who are involved in other criminal activity that cannot be prosecuted. Al Capone, for example, was incarcerated as a “white collar criminal” who had committed “victimless crimes”. That strategy is still used today.

Now tell me… is manufacture and distribution of cocaine and methamphetamine a victimless crime?

I have not recently looked at the figures but I have seen different number putting the % of people in prison for drug usage/selling/etc at anywhere from near 25% to 70%. Depending upon their definition. So after legalization and regulation impacts the street market, and those drug related violent offenders in the system are gone I would imagine that I would free up a significant about of our resources in the long run.

If your statement presupposes that these offenders are predominantly incarcerated, on a national level, for marijuana related offenses you are very sorely mistaken.

Or are you saying you would legalize the manufacture and distribution of methamphetamine and cocaine?

From your statement you feel that the majority of the focus need to be on society and cultural issues.

The focus needs to be placed upon BOTH.

More importantly however, the focus needs to be on criminal justice sanctions that have meaning.

You are absolutely correct when you say that there are plenty of offenders that do not need to be in prison. The problem is that you buy into the popular rhetoric that identifies said offenders based upon emotion as opposed to actual demonstrable success and social benefit; eg. the stat rapist vs. the incest offender. You advocate minimizing the prison population whilst simultaneously propagating the mythology that our society needs to build more prisons and jail more people.

The path you are taking leads to Government involvement in the home, further involvement in the schools, and an even further expansion of the Nanny State.

LOL… and building more and more prisons is not in your estimation a propagation of the “Nanny State?” Building more prisons; a process of perpetually increasing taxation upon the innocent victims of crime, and creating legions of dependent and socially inept citizens, is somehow better??? Advocacy of greater imprisonment is akin to suggesting that we transcend (sorry… we leap frog) from a “nanny state” to an “ICU state”.

Society can only be fixed from within,

Yes, that’s my point. Last I checked prisons still met the criteria of external control.

social experimentation to "improve" the state that man lives in, and helps to remedy the wrongs of our society are not possible in a free country. Only in a system where the state rules all aspects of life can it even attempt such a thing. That is something that I personally do not want, need, or feel that anyone should begin to try and implement.

No one is suggesting that it is possible or that we should even necessarily try in many cases. What I am saying to you is that your “simple” solution to the problem of crime in this country is based in rhetoric and emotion; it is ludicrous and irresponsible given the extent of the underlying and compelling social maladies.

Big prisons, lethal injections and sh** talking legislators will do NOTHING to alleviate the problem of crime in America.

But it is not even close to an apples to apples comparison. There is a HUGE flaw in the logic. If I want to commit a violent crime I do not need to use a gun, I can use a knife, or bat, or brick, or bomb, or a pc of piano wife, where as the commision of a crime, by definition requires a criminal

TCB… the premise is irrelevant. One can say that the elimination of gummie bears and tomato soup from corner convenience stores will reduce crime, and it means no more or less than the argument you have forwarded. The underlying basis of the argument, that the problem of crime has its root in anything other than society, is the problem. You can blame it on the individual if you like, and yes the individual does need to be held accountable, but eradication (or even control) of the problem requires initiatives directed at the SOURCE.

Jailing criminals over and over while ignoring the social problem of crime is like confiscating guns in the hope of their eradication while simultaneously funding the factories producing them.

If that is not your point then please explain exactly where you are going with this, as I cannot understand your logic. I know from a moral standpoint my RKBA is sound and I can defend it, I know from a common sense standpoint the logic is solid, as looking back through history those w/o arms have not fared so well. Further more those great men who founded this nation made it pretty clear that they thought it was a good idea, so I intend to go with that also. So when I hear you beginning to go all transcendental on me, all I can figure is that we are about to "feel someone pain" or something.

*Sigh*

The logic behind the RKBA is sound. I am not questioning that.

What I am suggesting to you is that the people have developed an advanced understanding of this right due to its immediate impact upon them… convenience. It is not a slight against gun owners.

They have not developed as advanced understanding of the principles behind crime and justice because there has not been an equivalent need.


Before going forward, WHY, does there need to be more?

Because prisoning in and of itself as a solution to crime, the idea of a straight up the middle punitive response to criminality has been tried and has failed miserably.

Personal responsibility, being willing to work for things, self control, self sacrifice, working to build for the future. Having respect for one's self and those around you. Those are laudable goals, but again WHO is going to instill these into our society?

YES! Excellent. And I admittedly don’t know the answer. But I will tell you that the answer is NOT in a prison cell. And it is NOT in investing billions and billions of taxpayer dollars in constructing and staffing them.

I agree there is not currently a strict causal relationship between an increase in incareration and violent crime occurances. IMHO there are a couple of reasons for that. First is as mentioned about, the current illegal drug infrastructure. For far to many of our low income citizens that market seems to be the best ticket out. Ridding our streets of that "easy money" will make the idea of education much more palatable to those masses.

But again TCB… you are then necessarily advocating legalization and regulation of drugs such as cocaine and methamphetamine. Not to mention the fact that a HUGE component in crimes committed in low income urban areas is alcohol, a substance which is already legally available. People don’t shoot each other over the availability of alcohol anymore TCB, but they still shoot each other because of it. How do you plan to reconcile the resultant dysfunction?

Second is prison itself. While currently not a "great" place, it certainly isn't what it was 40 year ago. Prison today is well, easy. Other than the loss of freedom prison is looked on as a decent existence, after all they feed you cloth you, hey you even get a gym and TV in many places. For many folks I have spoke with it is a better life than any they ever had before. Make prison BAD again and I believe you will see more of a deterrent. Add to that a REAL sentence for violent offenders and I believe you WILL make inroads into the problem.

TCB… I’m sorry but this is a whole load of rhetoric. Today’s inmates serve longer sentences than ever before in history. The physical facilities are better, but the conditions are more violent, overcrowded, disease ridden and restrictive than ever before also. By and large, the negative disparity in conditions between home and prison are generally accepted to be greater now than they were during the “halcyon” days of imprisonment during the 20’s and 30’s.


OK I will bite on this one, how can you "fix society's ills" w/o further expanding the "Nanny State?"

I don’t know that you can TCB. I don’t know that there is an honest answer to the problem. There certainly is NOT a SIMPLE one and that has been my point from square one. But I’ll tell you that the problem certainly cannot be addressed through further propagating the folly that we have been engaged in for the last century.

Really, it doesn't work, has never been proven to be a success. Well do YOU break the law? WHY?

Not because of a fear of going to jail if that is what you are implying. Is that the reason you don’t kill people TCB?

Punitive deterrence does work for some, doesn't for others, especially when the punishment is seen as less than robust, so I somewhat agree and yet it does have one advantage though, those who are not detterred are then detained, which does provide a certain level of safety for the rest of society.

The success of punitive deterrence is based upon the ability of the offender to rationally and successfully engage in a process of cost-benefit analysis. Punitive deterrence works in situations where the potential offense is devoid of emotional context, the probability of apprehension is extremely high, and the sanction so far outweighs the benefit so as to make it tangibly offensive to the perpetrator.

For instance: if your state legislature were to pass a law making overtime parking at a meter a capital offense, it would have a profound punitive deterrent effect. Making rape a capital offense on the other hand would have very little impact given the difficulty in apprehending suspects and the various pathologies associated with such offenses.

Thus, punitive deterrence is a profound failure in that there are very profoundly few combinations of circumstances in which the requisite factors align to facilitate success.

Really, we don't NEED to. I just don't buy that. If your idea is right, then why do we even have prisons at all? No we do need serious prison time and even execution for those individuals who refuse to abide by the minimum standards of society.

We need prisons. We need serious prison sentences. We don’t need to keep building more and more and more. We can’t afford to. There are myriad options available to addressing crime, from restorative and restitutive sanctions, to community supervision, to community based treatment. Many of these have been PROVEN to be more successful than incarceration. We need more responsible alternatives than warehousing millions of people. And even at that, we are not yet beginning to touch the problem of cause.

Psychological ideas? What psychological ideas? Explain these assertions to me if you would.
Certainly, it sounds as if you are speaking of dealing with crime at a societal level. There are plenty of theories out there right now about the collective soul or the nation (or some crap like that). The basic premise is that if you can fix enough of society's ill's that most of the problems go away. Much like the current push by the AMA to be involved in "forcing" people to eat healthy, avoid risky behaviors (including gun owner ship). The problem with all of these ideas is that while they sound good on paper, they don't work. They fail just like the biggest social experiment the world has ever seen. (USSR)

I’m still unsure what this has to do with psychology.

I am talking about crime on a social level, yes. I don’t see how one can examine the issue outside of a social perspective.

And you are right, you can’t force people to eat right, and you can’t force them to stop smoking, etc… But you can educate them why it is a good idea that they do and leave it up to them to make their own decisions. Those initiatives have worked quite well over the last twenty years in promoting the health of the nation. No, I don’t agree with every position held by the AMA, etc., but I also don’t agree with every position held by the NRA, etc. I am not about to dismiss all and every position forwarded by either organization on the basis of a few that offend me.


Lets see, in most parts of the country we have made sheep out of so many of the people that they cannot even fathom self defense. Criminals all over the nation EXPECT that they will meet no resistence and they are more often than not correct in that assumption, this is borne out in the rise in home invasions, car jackings, and other violent crime.

You are suggesting that criminals do a cost-benefit analysis in their decision to commit criminal acts? Do you suppose they keep track of the statistics regarding armed response by citizens as well to gauge the risk?

Most criminals are just not afraid of citizens or the justice system at this point. IF they do happen to get caught they end up in a prison system that is really not that bad, for what more often than not ends up being not such a long time. So I believe we have made crime begin to pay.

Again… this is a very popular assertion, but one that has little, if any, basis in reality.

Most criminals have virtually NO knowledge of the potential sanctions they will face for any particular offense. When offenders are interviewed after an offense or following conviction, they consistently report little or no consequential forethought to most crime.

Further, as noted, the relative conditions in today's communities vs. prisons are more disparate than were those of 80 years ago.

This is mythology borne largely out of entertainment media.

Maybe you are right, perhaps I am naive but your insistence on finding a solution to crime at a societal level (which I don't believe can be artificially engineered), and your staunch resistence to heftier punishment for violent offenders points me to that conclusion.

I make my living in the system TCB. I have a very fully developed sense of the toll exacted upon victims of violent crime. I know exactly what it looks and sounds like. I see it each and every day. I am the LAST person to oppose hefty punishment for violent offenses. What would lead you to suggest this?
__________________

TCB in TN
April 15, 2007, 12:41 AM
So much wrong here I don’t even know where to start. You REALLY believe that the “justice system” is doing a good job of handling violent crime?

And yes I do believe that even with the problems we have the Legislature is much more “reliable” than the Judiciary.

As for long sentences for Meth mfg well we certainly are not seeing that here, and no I do not consider the Mfg of Meth a victimless crime. I do consider ALL drug use a victimless crime. This is a conclusion that I have some to over the years, and the more argument I see against it, the more I am convinced that it truly is victimless.

And no I do not feel that the Majority of drug offenders are for pot alone, but I do contend that were Pot and other low level illegal recreational drugs legalized then you would in the long term reduce the level of more powerful illegal drugs. It is a function of supply and demand, and currently there is a huge demand, which has created an infrastructure to supply them. Lets take the issue of drinking by minors, and compare that to Pot usage by minors. It is much easier for a minor to get pot than it is for them to get alcohol. Regulation of the one limits its availability. Etc. The net effect of legalization of those low level drugs is that they would be more difficult for the average minor to acquire, ending long term in a reduction in drug use, etc. since you are involved in the Judicial system you are probably more familiar with this arguement than I am, so I will not bother to further spell out my position on this.

I certainly do not advocate minimizing the prison population. What I do advocate is that we put those people most likely to be a danger to society into prison regardless of the number.

In my estimation building prisons has nothing to do with the “Nanny State”. By definition Prison is a place where your life is ran for you. I am a HUGE fan of the principle. In my estimation letting the “State” run prisons and keeping them OUT of the lives of the rest of society is a grand idea.
To me prisons are outside of society

”Big prisons, lethal injections and sh** talking legislators will do NOTHING to alleviate the problem of crime in America.”

I completely disagree, without consequences Laws mean nothing. Incarceration, capital punishment both have their place.

You said
“TCB… the premise is irrelevant. One can say that the elimination of gummie bears and tomato soup from corner convenience stores will reduce crime, and it means no more or less than the argument you have forwarded.”
Again I will just have to completely disagree with you on this. If you want to make a point in debate, then the premise, is certainly important. Your comparison was seriously flawed, the two points were so loosely related as to have very little relevance.
You said
“Because prisoning in and of itself as a solution to crime, the idea of a straight up the middle punitive response to criminality has been tried and has failed miserably.”

Again we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. For some the punitive response is all they can understand. You talk about education and getting to the root of the issues and I agree that both are laudable idea. That said they have failed just a miserably in their attempt to fix the ill’s of man. You are looking to “reconcile” something that lies in the hearts, minds, and soul of man. Some folks just DON”T do what they should, even in spite of having all they should ever want, money, fame, education, etc. How do you plan to reconcile such dysfunction?

I will not argue about the facilities, and how they are better than ever before, but as for the whole “serving sentences longer than ever before” well I don’t know. I sure see a lot of violent criminals getting out in 3 to 5 years. Maybe that is longer, but whether it is not not, it still isn’t long enough.

So you do not commit crime because you are not afraid of punishment? Well if we had no punishment then you would still follow the speed limit? How about paying your taxes? You ask about Murder, well no, I really don’t personally want to kill anyone although there are a few people that I have met, that I am willing to reconsider if the consequences were to be removed.:evil:

You said “The success of punitive deterrence is based upon the ability of the offender to rationally and successfully engage in a process of cost-benefit analysis. Punitive deterrence works in situations where the potential offense is devoid of emotional context, the probability of apprehension is extremely high, and the sanction so far outweighs the benefit so as to make it tangibly offensive to the perpetrator.”

Well I disagree, half of the success of punitive deterrence is that it reminds those in our society who can rationalize the consequences, of the reasons to avoid breaking the law. Your assumption is that the benefit is for the offender, but it is not, the benefit is for society. Removal of the offender, and a reminder to the rest of society, is where the benefit lies.

You said “We need prisons. We need serious prison sentences. We don’t need to keep building more and more and more. We can’t afford to. There are myriad options available to addressing crime, from restorative and restitutive sanctions, to community supervision, to community based treatment. Many of these have been PROVEN to be more successful than incarceration. We need more responsible alternatives than warehousing millions of people. And even at that, we are not yet beginning to touch the problem of cause.”
So where is the large scale example of this success? I have never seen or heard of it. I am an Educator, and in education we try to use positive re-enforcement, tailor education to meet the specific needs of each of the student. It is a great thing, and works for a large percentage of them. For some it just doesn’t work. For those students you end up having to remove them from the General Education classroom and they typically have to be placed into a more “structured” environment. Even then there are some who are not able to make it and have to placed into Juvie. Btw if those individuals that you are talking about are unable to rationalize punitive deterrence how are they likely to respond to these wonderful programs you mention?

You said “I’m still unsure what this has to do with psychology.”

I cannot see any other way to take it. You are looking at crime as if it can all be explained and treated like bipolar disorder or some other mental issue.

You said “ And you are right, you can’t force people to eat right, and you can’t force them to stop smoking, etc… But you can educate them why it is a good idea that they do and leave it up to them to make their own decisions. Those initiatives have worked quite well over the last twenty years in promoting the health of the nation. No, I don’t agree with every position held by the AMA, etc., but I also don’t agree with every position held by the NRA, etc. I am not about to dismiss all and every position forwarded by either organization on the basis of a few that offend me. “

Well this disturbs me, you feel that “the AMA’s education programs” have done well? After all there are more obese folks in the country today than ever before. High blood pressure, etc. are pretty much at all time highs, your assumptions is that if people know better then they will do better, and in light of the evidence in front of us, I would say that idea has failed miserably.

I most certainly am saying that criminals do a very simple bit of “risk analysis”. If you look at states where gun ownership is very high, you just do not find the same number of “sheeple related” crimes. I don’t think they keep track of statistics, but I do think they notice when people get shot regularly for mugging, car jacking, home invasion etc.
As for you making your living in the system, well OK, I have to live with the outputs of that system. As an educator I know exactly how it feels to have all the blemishes of your profession paraded for all to see, and I also know what it is like to honestly say that many of those criticisms are valid.

JCF
April 15, 2007, 03:32 AM
You REALLY believe that the “justice system” is doing a good job of handling violent crime?

No, I absolutely do not. I have repeatedly asserted that the system is desperately flawed. The solution however is not, as you are suggesting, an amplification of exactly what we are currently doing.


As for long sentences for Meth mfg well we certainly are not seeing that here, and no I do not consider the Mfg of Meth a victimless crime. I do consider ALL drug use a victimless crime. This is a conclusion that I have some to over the years, and the more argument I see against it, the more I am convinced that it truly is victimless.

And I hope that you understand that “drug use” in itself is not an action for which one is incarcerated. It is the extraneous behavior associated with that “victimless” act that causes a problem for the individual; theft, burglary, prostitution, armed robbery, child abuse and neglect, manufacture and distribution, etc.

And no I do not feel that the Majority of drug offenders are for pot alone, but I do contend that were Pot and other low level illegal recreational drugs legalized then you would in the long term reduce the level of more powerful illegal drugs. It is a function of supply and demand, and currently there is a huge demand, which has created an infrastructure to supply them. Lets take the issue of drinking by minors, and compare that to Pot usage by minors. It is much easier for a minor to get pot than it is for them to get alcohol. Regulation of the one limits its availability. Etc. The net effect of legalization of those low level drugs is that they would be more difficult for the average minor to acquire, ending long term in a reduction in drug use, etc. since you are involved in the Judicial system you are probably more familiar with this arguement than I am, so I will not bother to further spell out my position on this.

I understand and fundamentally agree with most of your argument. Particularly where issues of supply and demand for marijuana are concerned.

I am considerably less confident however regarding the assertion that legalization and regulation of “lower level drugs” is apt to lower demand for rock cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, etc. There is very little, if anything, to support this position, and a great deal of material surrounding the pathology of addiction to refute it.

There is also an emerging body of evidence that points toward the idea that legalization of marijuana may compound the problem of pervasive addiction through universal legitimation of drug behavior. The jury is still out on that as it is socially and contextually specific, and therefore impossible to verify.


What I do advocate is that we put those people most likely to be a danger to society into prison regardless of the number.

I am with you on this TCB, but it is my contention that the process of identification of these people is not quite as simple as one might think. The data surrounding tangible impact, perceived victim loss and quantified recidivism supports this.

In my estimation building prisons has nothing to do with the “Nanny State”. By definition Prison is a place where your life is ran for you. I am a HUGE fan of the principle. In my estimation letting the “State” run prisons and keeping them OUT of the lives of the rest of society is a grand idea.
To me prisons are outside of society

Prisons are outside of society?

I would be more inclined to agree with you if it wasn’t for the fact that the prisons we are currently operating (just the prisons… not including community supervision, halfway houses, etc.) weren’t already costing the citizens of this nation in excess of 60 billion dollars annually.

I would be more inclined to agree with you if it were not for the fact that the majority of people that get released from these animal factories back into our communities after any length of time are stripped of virtually any ability to exist independently without community support.

TCB, the prison system is the mother of all Nannies. It is a gigantic, fat and abusive babysitter that is creating legions of dysfunctional children. You eschew social experiments? What exactly do you think our massive concrete and steel rat maze is TCB? It’s been a 100+ year social experiment that no one knows how to end.

Incarceration, capital punishment both have their place.

Incarceration has its place. We don’t need any more than we already have though. No one is suggesting the abandonment of consequences. As I said earlier, the answer to our problem is not to amplify the mistakes we have been making for the last hundred plus years.

Again I will just have to completely disagree with you on this. If you want to make a point in debate, then the premise, is certainly important. Your comparison was seriously flawed, the two points were so loosely related as to have very little relevance.

I was illustrating an example of a similarly nonsensical conclusion TCB, I was not drawing a direct comparative. In any event, you’re dwelling on the inconsequential portion of the argument. The matter of substance is the issue of crime’s origin. Interpret it as you wish however.

Again we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. For some the punitive response is all they can understand. You talk about education and getting to the root of the issues and I agree that both are laudable idea. That said they have failed just a miserably in their attempt to fix the ill’s of man. You are looking to “reconcile” something that lies in the hearts, minds, and soul of man. Some folks just DON”T do what they should, even in spite of having all they should ever want, money, fame, education, etc. How do you plan to reconcile such dysfunction?

I don’t know that one can. One certainly cannot imprison it out of someone.

I will not argue about the facilities, and how they are better than ever before, but as for the whole “serving sentences longer than ever before” well I don’t know. I sure see a lot of violent criminals getting out in 3 to 5 years. Maybe that is longer, but whether it is not not, it still isn’t long enough.

People tend to dwell on the early release stories. They tend to interpret them as normative. It is hard to blame them for becoming emotive in response as it offends the sensibilities. Nonetheless, one needs to understand that these stories make good copy and are great leaders for the local media. The story of the same offender receiving an average sentence is much less lurid and consequently less interesting. When you look at actual sentencing trends TCB, the actual sentences are (and time served) is higher now than ever before in history.

So you do not commit crime because you are not afraid of punishment?

That’s correct.

Well if we had no punishment then you would still follow the speed limit?

I may or may not follow it precisely, but I would certainly be in very close proximity to it. I frequently drive below the speed limit, particularly in the city. I’ve seen my share of carnage TCB. I drive the speed limit out of a desire for self preservation and feelings of responsibility to those around me.

How about paying your taxes?

Yes, I would. It’s called civic responsibility. It’s the same general process that drives people to volunteer to join the Army, etc.

You ask about Murder, well no, I really don’t personally want to kill anyone although there are a few people that I have met, that I am willing to reconsider if the consequences were to be removed.

I don’t have those feelings, even lightheartedly. Perhaps you and I have differently requirements of external control. Perhaps that influences our position on this issue.

Well I disagree, half of the success of punitive deterrence is that it reminds those in our society who can rationalize the consequences, of the reasons to avoid breaking the law.

The point TCB is that those who engage in such behavior do not as a matter of course engage in a process of rationalization of consequences to their actions aforehand. This assertion has been studied exhaustively, and has been thoroughly debunked.

Your assumption is that the benefit is for the offender, but it is not, the benefit is for society. Removal of the offender, and a reminder to the rest of society, is where the benefit lies.

Those in our society who choose not to violate the law do not need to be rewarded for their decision, nor do they expect to be. Lawfulness is an expectation of our society, not meritorious conduct. Removal of an offender for the safety of the community is an expectation of law abiding behavior, but it comes at profound cost… it is in absolutely no way a reward.


So where is the large scale example of this success? I have never seen or heard of it.

There are no large scale examples in this country. There are lots of small ones. Such initiatives are virtually impossible to implement on anything other than a regional or cellular level due to the hue and cry from “tough on crime” advocates who decry them as “coddling”. Alternative initiatives require novel thinking and, frequently, an examination of conventional thought; a process that makes traditional law and order thinkers rather uncomfortable.

In Texas for instance, the Dept. of Health operates a community-based outpatient sex-offender treatment program for sexually violent predators. It is much more successful than inpatient prison-based treatment. It is cheaper and better for the community overall. It is safer. It drives the “tough on crime” people insane. It should be the standard, but it likely never will be because it “just don’t make common sense”.


You are looking at crime as if it can all be explained and treated like bipolar disorder or some other mental issue.

I have done absolutely no such thing. I am suggesting that it is MUCH MORE than a pathology. YOU are the one limiting responses to criminality to those aimed at individual pathology.



Well this disturbs me, you feel that “the AMA’s education programs” have done well? After all there are more obese folks in the country today than ever before. High blood pressure, etc. are pretty much at all time highs, your assumptions is that if people know better then they will do better, and in light of the evidence in front of us, I would say that idea has failed miserably.

LOL… where exactly do you think we would be without said education TCB???

We smoke less than ever, we wear our seatbelts, we roll condoms on our (and each other’s) genitals, we check automotive safety ratings on consumer reports, you can purchase low-fat, sugar-free, and low-cholesterol anything and everything at the grocery store, infant mortality is at an all-time low, etc., etc., etc. Yeah, we are getting fatter… that is hardly a failure of the AMA or the education system.

I most certainly am saying that criminals do a very simple bit of “risk analysis”. If you look at states where gun ownership is very high, you just do not find the same number of “sheeple related” crimes.

Demonstrate that to me if you would please (in terms of causality I mean, not an overall statistic that attempts to draw a comparative between crime rates in Wyoming and California, etc).

I don’t think they keep track of statistics, but I do think they notice when people get shot regularly for mugging, car jacking, home invasion etc.

Show me where that works.

As for you making your living in the system, well OK, I have to live with the outputs of that system. As an educator I know exactly how it feels to have all the blemishes of your profession paraded for all to see, and I also know what it is like to honestly say that many of those criticisms are valid.

*Sigh*

Yes TCB, the system is badly flawed... I am neither shy nor sensitive about that fact.

Once again, we certainly don’t need MORE of it as you are advocating.

TCB in TN
April 15, 2007, 08:21 PM
Well, I think the horse is just about as dead as it can get. The more we say on this issue the further we are apart in our conclusions, as to how things are, and how they should be. It has certainly been both fun and informative.

Good day and God Bless you.

If you enjoyed reading about "If gun control were up to you!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!