LAK wrote: (responding to my post)
My primary point is that there are many gunowners that support this
Popularity. A mere measure of acceptence. If we were debating whether handguns should be sold to persons under 18 we could say it is somewhat subjective.
Only if you use popularity as justification. I did not use "popularity" as a measure. I merely stated that this is not a point that is solely the realm of antis.
I won't respond to the handguns analogy. It isn't an "All-or-None." Whatever views I have on handguns is not relevant to this topic.
I don't think that stacking mandatory increases in sentences for crimes against persons based on an arbitrary element of the crime is quite the same thing. It is closer to the idea of increasing sentences for murders or robberies etc that are classed as "hate crimes". It is basically saying that it is not so bad, and you won't go to jail for too long, if one murders - or anything else - with a weapon as long as it is not a firearm. That's an outrage.
Let's cut to it. Dead is dead... regardless of what instrument is used. I fully get your point about the "arbitrary" nature of firearms add-ons. At the same time, I am more than willing to tack on all I can to someone that is ALREADY commited the crime.
Here's a novel idea. Don't commit crimes. Then you don't have to worry about sentencing. However, if you DO chose to commit crimes such as we are talking about, I have absolutely no remorse.
And if by chance stiffer penalties for using a firearm in the commission of said crime does either of the following:
- Puts away a thug longer.
- Reduced the number of firearms crimes that the antis can use against us.
Then I am very happy.
It is, because it highlights firearms as worthy of some special horror when it comes to crimes against persons. Which is irrational.
I see your point here, and concede it. However, I have to ask-- what do you think about the fact that BANK robbery gets stiffer penalties than simple robbery?
So if some guy rapes a girl - and in the "struggle" strangles her, get's 40 years - out after 20 on parole .. as opposed to more if they used a firearm to hustle her into a car is a fair "trade" for simply letting everything else run on it's own constitutional and legal definitions??
Since we are speaking of hypotheticals, I would like to see that the person NEVER gets out of prison-- barring that he doesn't get the death penalty.
You analogy isn't fair. In the instance of the firearm, they would be getting an ADD-ON amount to the standard amount.
Your logic implies that the STANDARD amount isn't enough. Why not just UP the amount of time for the original offense? I'm good with that.
Likewise; is society not being punished if everyone can get a fraction of the potential sentence if they use an alternative to a firearm?
Again, you fail to grasp the concept.
There is the CORE sentence, and then there is the ADD-ON sentence. You are trying to imply that the CORE Plus ADD-ON is the measure of the penalty. That isn't it.
The CORE is the penalty. The ADD-ON is what they can tack onto it.
In the case of using another weapon rather than a firearm, you are getting the CORE sentence. The firearm gets an ADD-ON.
While there is an arbitrary nature to that and I concede that, seem to be seeing the CORE PLUS ADD-ON as the standard penalty. It just ain't that.
If you think a brutal crime that doesn't have a firearms component to it gets too light a penalty, then you have a problem with the CORE, straight penalty.
And in that, we are in agreement.
-- John
