Is gun crime worse than hammer crime?

[chieftain]

Arizona, Florida and New York all have modifiers.

Go figure.

Fred

 

[Happiness Is A Warm Gun]

Good cite WheelGunMom.

I do like this law though. It doesn't make firearms a special category. I think someone who steals a car unaramed should go to jail. Someone who steals a car while armed with a deadly weapon, ANY deadly weapon should go to jail for longer time. By having the weapon they increase the risk to public. Even if they didn't intend to kill/injure someone it could happen. Sure a carjacker could beat someone to death with their fists however it is less likely and thus less dangerous.

NRS 193.165 Additional penalty: Use of deadly weapon or tear gas in commission of crime; restriction on probation.

1. Except as otherwise provided in NRS 193.169, any person who uses a firearm or other deadly weapon or a weapon containing or capable of emitting tear gas, whether or not its possession is permitted by NRS 202.375, in the commission of a crime shall, in addition to the term of imprisonment prescribed by statute for the crime, be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 1 year and a maximum term of not more than 20 years. In determining the length of the additional penalty imposed, the court shall consider the following information:
(a) The facts and circumstances of the crime;
(b) The criminal history of the person;
(c) The impact of the crime on any victim;
(d) Any mitigating factors presented by the person; and
(e) Any other relevant information.

 

[Owen Sparks]

Suppose a six foot six 280 pound man mugs another man over twice his age and less than half his weight. He says:

"Hand over your wallet or I will break your neck."

Is he any less guilty of threatening his victim with deadly violence than had the situation been reversed and the small man were the mugger and had used a tool of some type (gun, knife, club) to make up for the size disparity? In both cases the mugger demanded money by threatening the other man with deadly force, and in both cases the agressor had the capacity to back up the threat.

 

[Happiness Is A Warm Gun]

There will always be extreme examples:

"Suppose a gangbanger with no firearms skills robs someone with the safety on and didn't know how to turn safety off". Is it still threat of deadly force?

The law deals with the majority.

Take a burglar. Says because of "deadly weapon" legislation he looks for unoccupied houses. Say he accidentally breaks into one where homeowner is home. IMHO he is less likely to escalate the situation if he is unarmed and homeowner is armed (or thinks homeowner is armed). He likely runs away.

If the law makes him less likely to be armed my chances of survival are greater. If he is armed and is more of a threat then I hope he goes away for longer time.

I don't really feel bad that one mugger gets and extra 5 years (plus say 10 for robbery) while your body builder mugger gets lighter sentence (only the 10). I am not going to cry that one BG had to do more time and that isn't fair.

 

[WheelGunMom]

If Owen's scenario happened here in Nevada, there likely wouldn't be a deadly weapon enhancement to this robbery (I doubt hands would fall under our definition of "deadly weapon"), but if the victim was 60 years or over, there is a seperate 1 to 20 year criminal sentence enhancement for robbing older victims.

See http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-193.html#NRS193Sec167

 

[tigre]

Once again I am looking for a single statute anywhere where a sentencing is increased if a firearm is used in a crime.

"The 1999 Florida Legislature passed sweeping legislation that provides for enhanced minimum mandatory prison terms for offenders who commit crimes with guns." From here. I don't know what the statute number is.

I can see the purpose behind these laws, because someone robbing a gas station (for example) with a gun could shoot without planning to in advance, due to nerves or something like that. If they were unarmed or just had a knife maybe a violent outcome would be less likely. I don't necessarily support those laws, especially the ones that apply to the mere possession of a gun during a non-violent crime (like drug possession, etc.), but I can understand how other people could.

 

[Henry Bowman]

Why should firearms be singled out?

They shouldn't. But that is one of the many compromises (appeasements) we gave in return for not completely abridging our RKBA over the years.

 

[Owen Sparks]

Is an armed robbery committed with a pistol any worse than if the mugger held a sharp kitchen knife to the victims throat while demanding money?

 

[Happiness Is A Warm Gun]

Is an armed robbery committed with a pistol any worse than if the mugger held a sharp kitchen knife to the victims throat while demanding money?

No. Once again please provide a statute other than Florida that says so. Most say "armed" or "deadly weapon". Some like Virginia or Texas simply enforce existing 40 year old law that prohibits a felon from possessing a firearm.

 

[jakemccoy]

Happiness,

You seem overly eager to appease and compromise with folks that are demonstrably illogical. I'm talking about the Brady Campaign. If I did have to compromise with those people, I would make sure I did so in the cover of night and would never speak a word of it in public.

Please don’t come back and say I don’t understand compromise. I do understand compromise. However, it sickens me here, and I would never try to convince any fellow gun owner that it’s a good thing with respect to the Second Amendment.

-Jake

 

[romma]

Is murdering a person with a gun somehow worse than murdering him with a knife or a claw hammer or with a ten pound rock?

We need a well rounded panel of murder victims for proper input here...

Q: "Sir, did it bother you to have that shovel driven through you skull"?

"Or are you just glad he didn't shoot you with a semi-auto assault weapon"?

A: "No, I am especially grateful I am only decomposing from the shovel to my skull"... "A gun would have traumatized me too much"... "Gun crime is serious stuff you know".

 

[tigre]

Once again I am looking for a single statute anywhere where a sentencing is increased if a firearm is used in a crime.

If there is no such law anywhere then we are debating about how bad something that doesn't exist is.

Once again please provide a statute other than Florida that says so.

I thought you wanted a single statute. I'm not sure why Florida wouldn't count as "anywhere." If you just wanted to know whether a law like this exists, then that's been covered.

 

[Nolo]

STOP!


Hammer crime!!!


I don't know why laws discriminate between "gun crime" and all other forms. I don't think they should. Maybe it has something to do with premeditation. Actually, I'm not sure that a law about a premeditated crime carrying more severe penalties if a gun was used is such a bad idea. It probably wouldn't do any harm (the "premeditated" part is important, though), and it might (just maybe, a little) discourage criminals from using firearms in robberies and such, which makes it easier for the populace to counter using firearms themselves.
I think the law'd be worth a shot at least for experiment.



*"HammerCrime" image, property of Oleg Volk

 

[Happiness Is A Warm Gun]

Point taken tigre. The FL law sucks. However I would say such laws are the exception rather than the rule.

The OP stated "many states". Many of the post seem to indicate this is a massive problem where virtually anywhere you are prosecuted more harshly for using a firearm. I don't think this is the case and the cites don't seem to support it either.

I do agree the FL law is poorly written. I would change every instance of "firearm" to "deadly weapon". I personally believe any crime involving a deadly weapon presents a higher risk of danger to society. It is simply faster and easier for things to get out of hand when a violent felon is armed (with ANY weapon).

 

[Phil DeGraves]

Just like murder without racial epithets are not as bad as murder with racial epithets; then it becomes a "hate crime" with enhanced penalties.