natedog
Member
do you think any gun laws help curtail crime?
do you think any gun laws help curtail crime?
- Thread starter natedog
- Start date
- Status
Mark Benningfield
Member
Nope!!
Hello All.
From Blackhawk:
I disagree, Blackhawk. This amounts to presuming guilt until proven innocent.
Hello All.
From Blackhawk:
I disagree, Blackhawk. This amounts to presuming guilt until proven innocent.
Mark,
Law: A felon may not possess a firearm.
Situation: Felon caught possessing a firearm.
Prima facie case: Felon violated law.
Indictment: Felon caught with firearm in violation of law.
Trial: Guilty.
Sentence: Slammer.
Result: Felon unable to commit crime while in slammer. Statistically, a felon will repeat felonious behavior, so that felon's probable crimes will be curtailed while serving time.
Conclusion: The particular law curtails crime.
Law: A felon may not possess a firearm.
Situation: Felon caught possessing a firearm.
Prima facie case: Felon violated law.
Indictment: Felon caught with firearm in violation of law.
Trial: Guilty.
Sentence: Slammer.
Result: Felon unable to commit crime while in slammer. Statistically, a felon will repeat felonious behavior, so that felon's probable crimes will be curtailed while serving time.
Conclusion: The particular law curtails crime.
Mark Benningfield
Member
Nope!!
Hello All.
Okay, Blackhawk:
This is what I mean by presumption of guilt. To make it illegal for a convicted felon to own firearms presumes that he will commit crimes with it. Therefore, you presume him guilty before he has committed a crime (other than simply owning a firearm). To deny the RKBA to persons belonging to a group that has a statistically high rate of criminal activity is only the beginning.
Hello All.
Okay, Blackhawk:
This is what I mean by presumption of guilt. To make it illegal for a convicted felon to own firearms presumes that he will commit crimes with it. Therefore, you presume him guilty before he has committed a crime (other than simply owning a firearm). To deny the RKBA to persons belonging to a group that has a statistically high rate of criminal activity is only the beginning.
Hkmp5sd
Member
I agree with felons banned from possession of firearms, although not necessarily for life. They must have the opportunity to legally regain that right just as they can for voting, etc.
But up to that point, I see no reason for laws on guns. By definition, a criminal breaks the law, so the law only effect those that are not criminals.
But up to that point, I see no reason for laws on guns. By definition, a criminal breaks the law, so the law only effect those that are not criminals.
Mark,
The discussion isn't about whether the law is just or right or good on that score. Fact is that it's not a prospective law. It exists now and has for a long, long time.
The discussion is whether or not it helps curtail crime. The demonstrable fact is that it does.
My statement doesn't presume that any particular felon will have his criminal behavior curtailed, just that on the whole some will be. There's not a presumption of guilt anywhere to be found in that. It's just like being in a rain forest and saying that it will rain more than it will in the Sahara desert.
The discussion isn't about whether the law is just or right or good on that score. Fact is that it's not a prospective law. It exists now and has for a long, long time.
The discussion is whether or not it helps curtail crime. The demonstrable fact is that it does.
My statement doesn't presume that any particular felon will have his criminal behavior curtailed, just that on the whole some will be. There's not a presumption of guilt anywhere to be found in that. It's just like being in a rain forest and saying that it will rain more than it will in the Sahara desert.
That beginning began long, long ago, and even when (if?) the SCOTUS restores the 2A as it's written, the felon bar to firearms will likely stand as a "reasonable" exception. Hopefully, however, some felons will be able to have their RKBA rights restored, especially non-violent ones.
Preacherman
Member
Yep - CCW laws! The more citizens and legal residents are authorized to carry the means to defend themselves against criminals, the more these gun laws help curtail crime!
Mark Benningfield
Member
Nope!!
Hello All.
I think that it is a discussion about whether the law is right or wrong. The whole point of fighting for the RKBA is about opposing unjust laws, no matter whether they are proposed or enacted. I don't think that it matters any at all how long it has been on the books. If you would oblige me, take a look at this:
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=146207 and tell me what you think. Thanks.
Hello All.
I think that it is a discussion about whether the law is right or wrong. The whole point of fighting for the RKBA is about opposing unjust laws, no matter whether they are proposed or enacted. I don't think that it matters any at all how long it has been on the books. If you would oblige me, take a look at this:
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=146207 and tell me what you think. Thanks.
WilderBill
Member
I expect that laws that allow open carry would do even more than those that provide for concelled carry.
If you were gonna rob someone, would you go for the guy that might be armed or the one you know for sure is armed?
If you were gonna rob someone, would you go for the guy that might be armed or the one you know for sure is armed?
hansolo
Member In Memoriam
Wilder Bill reply
I'm with you 100%! I have heard of a town where it is mandatory for every citizen over a certain age to carry openly; I believe it is in Texas. The rate of crimes against persons is ZERO!
I may need to live there someday!
I'm with you 100%! I have heard of a town where it is mandatory for every citizen over a certain age to carry openly; I believe it is in Texas. The rate of crimes against persons is ZERO!
I may need to live there someday!
stellarpod
Member
I believe that laws which require swift, overwhelming punishment (i.e. extremely long manditory sentences) for crimes commited with guns can deter crime - at least crime carried out using firearms.
It's debatable whether or not it impacts crime in general.
stellarpod
It's debatable whether or not it impacts crime in general.
stellarpod
dog3
Member
> "do you think any gun laws help curtail crime?"
No.
No.
David Scott
Member
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2002
- Messages
- 167
Consider one aspect of most CCW laws -- the requirement for training which includes the laws of deadly force. This requirement, I believe, helps prevent unintentional crimes. A person who carries really ought to know when they can shoot without going to jail for it.
I also agree that harsh punishments for violent crime are something of a deterrent, but they're not the magic solution some politicians think. No matter how tough the sentences, there will always be someone driven by greed or stupidity to try it anyway. Florida's 10-20-life law has put a lot of people away, but there are plenty more lining up to rob folks -- we had 3 armed robberies in one day's local newspaper last week.
As for denying guns to felons, I don't think it does that much good. I think we all agree that a person of ill intent isn't going to respect that restriction anyway. On the other hand, a former felon who has reformed may feel just as much need for protection as you and I do.
I also agree that harsh punishments for violent crime are something of a deterrent, but they're not the magic solution some politicians think. No matter how tough the sentences, there will always be someone driven by greed or stupidity to try it anyway. Florida's 10-20-life law has put a lot of people away, but there are plenty more lining up to rob folks -- we had 3 armed robberies in one day's local newspaper last week.
As for denying guns to felons, I don't think it does that much good. I think we all agree that a person of ill intent isn't going to respect that restriction anyway. On the other hand, a former felon who has reformed may feel just as much need for protection as you and I do.
seeker_two
Member
In addition to those listed above, I'll add this one to the mix....the NICS check system.
Why, you ask?
For one simple reason--it protects gun dealers from liability if they sell to someone who later commits a crime. I don't know a single FFL holder who wants to sell to someone w/ a criminal history, and NICS helps them to find out. This way, if someone tries to sue the dealer, the dealer has proof that there was no restriction on that person.
Should it be mandatory for a sale? NO. Should it include a waiting period? NO. But should FFL's have access to this as a protection for themselves? ABSOLUTELY!
(tugging at the waistband of his asbestos underwear...) OK, flame away..
Why, you ask?
For one simple reason--it protects gun dealers from liability if they sell to someone who later commits a crime. I don't know a single FFL holder who wants to sell to someone w/ a criminal history, and NICS helps them to find out. This way, if someone tries to sue the dealer, the dealer has proof that there was no restriction on that person.
Should it be mandatory for a sale? NO. Should it include a waiting period? NO. But should FFL's have access to this as a protection for themselves? ABSOLUTELY!
(tugging at the waistband of his asbestos underwear...) OK, flame away..
Seeker_two,
If people were punished for crimes committed, and real felons were kept in jail for their terms of punishment, and had their rights restored at their completion, we would not need such a system to protect the dealer. Because the only people he could sell to would be people who have retained that right to keep and bear arms.
If people were punished for crimes committed, and real felons were kept in jail for their terms of punishment, and had their rights restored at their completion, we would not need such a system to protect the dealer. Because the only people he could sell to would be people who have retained that right to keep and bear arms.
Statistically, a felon will repeat felonious behavior, so that felon's probable crimes will be curtailed while serving time.
Blackhawk,
How about if we just skip the gun law part, and keep the felon in prison based on the "probable crimes".
Although statistically Mr. Felon might have gone on to break other laws, it is his inclination to break them that does him in. So why a gun law?
How about if we make it illegal for a felon to sneeze- that would make it even easier to prevent his future crimes.
Blackhawk,
How about if we just skip the gun law part, and keep the felon in prison based on the "probable crimes".
Although statistically Mr. Felon might have gone on to break other laws, it is his inclination to break them that does him in. So why a gun law?
How about if we make it illegal for a felon to sneeze- that would make it even easier to prevent his future crimes.
2dogs,
You're missing the point.
"Any gun laws" implies that they already exist.
"Curtail crime" means prevent or reduce crime.
Of the 20k+ gun laws on the books, how many of them might possibly be Constitutional? Don't know, but I'll bet very few. But that's not the issue.
Obvioiusly, if a gun law existed that called for execution or life imprisonment of anybody having a gun on their person while committing a crime, that would curtail crime. There isn't such a law, AFAIK.
We're not discussing crafting prospective gun laws with the intent being for them to curtail crime, we're just talking about the single purpose effectiveness of preventing crime of any existing law, not whether any particular law that might be effective is just or right or good or Constitutional or just plain stupid. The Nazis' gun laws were effective in curtailing crime, but they also created "state approved" crimes in doing it.
You're missing the point.
"Any gun laws" implies that they already exist.
"Curtail crime" means prevent or reduce crime.
Of the 20k+ gun laws on the books, how many of them might possibly be Constitutional? Don't know, but I'll bet very few. But that's not the issue.
Obvioiusly, if a gun law existed that called for execution or life imprisonment of anybody having a gun on their person while committing a crime, that would curtail crime. There isn't such a law, AFAIK.
We're not discussing crafting prospective gun laws with the intent being for them to curtail crime, we're just talking about the single purpose effectiveness of preventing crime of any existing law, not whether any particular law that might be effective is just or right or good or Constitutional or just plain stupid. The Nazis' gun laws were effective in curtailing crime, but they also created "state approved" crimes in doing it.
MicroBalrog
member
I know one...
...called the Second Amendment. Prevents 2,500,000 crimes per year + prevents genocide.
...called the Second Amendment. Prevents 2,500,000 crimes per year + prevents genocide.
dd-b
Member
Gun laws *create* crime -- by making criminals out of people doing otherwise reasonable things. It's just another example of a victimless crime.
Wildalaska
member
The Instant Check system prevents crimes, It prevents fugitives from obtaining guns. I have seen it happen.
and, get ready to flame away:
I beg to differ...I daresay that on a true constitutional level as consistently interpreted by the judiciary the vast majority of gun laws would be deemed constitional even under an individual rights determination of the Second Amendment. Remember, no right is absolute.
and, get ready to flame away:
I beg to differ...I daresay that on a true constitutional level as consistently interpreted by the judiciary the vast majority of gun laws would be deemed constitional even under an individual rights determination of the Second Amendment. Remember, no right is absolute.
You're missing the point.
Blackhawk
Yes, perhaps I am- I don't see the point in having gun laws in the hopes that a felon will break one of them and get sent to jail. If he is out of jail he belongs out, if not then send him back or don't let him out to begin with.
In your example, it only works if the felon gets caught- the existence of the law in and of itself does no good for anyone. You say by getting caught with a gun we have stopped his statistically likely future crime- and I think that is a ridiculous reason to have a law, and I don't think a felon should be barred from owning a gun- if he or anyone else commits a crime with a gun, then fry em. Otherwise we don't need no steenking gun laws.
Blackhawk
Yes, perhaps I am- I don't see the point in having gun laws in the hopes that a felon will break one of them and get sent to jail. If he is out of jail he belongs out, if not then send him back or don't let him out to begin with.
In your example, it only works if the felon gets caught- the existence of the law in and of itself does no good for anyone. You say by getting caught with a gun we have stopped his statistically likely future crime- and I think that is a ridiculous reason to have a law, and I don't think a felon should be barred from owning a gun- if he or anyone else commits a crime with a gun, then fry em. Otherwise we don't need no steenking gun laws.
- Status