Misunderstanding

[PCGS65]

Yesterday I posted a poll about peoples opinion of tougher sentences for gun crimes. From reading the replys(which I enjoy)it seems alot of people thought that I meant that gun crimes should be punished more severely than other crimes of the same magnitude. I simply mean how long should the minimum sentence be for a crime commited with a gun. Not that a murder,rape,home invasion with any other weapon should be treated with less severity. The second misunderstanding is my definition of a gun crime. Though I didn't specify,the definition of a gun crime I was refering to was a crime committed using a gun by displaying it or aiming it at something or someone or firing it for personal harm or property damage to intimidate someone for criminal purposes. Not stopping at the gas station or coffee shop on the way to a gun show or to go hunting with a gun in your car ect. Replys are appriciated. Thanks it's fun.

 

[Zundfolge]

Rape, murder, robbery etc should already have stiff penalties ... shouldn't matter what tools you use to commit the crime.

Though I didn't specify,the definition of a gun crime I was refering to was a crime committed using a gun by displaying it or aiming it at something or someone or firing it for personal harm or property damage to intimidate someone for criminal purposes. Not stopping at the gas station or coffee shop on the way to a gun show or to go hunting with a gun in your car ect.

Problem is, once you make it "extra bad" to rape someone with a gun vs a knife or just greater strength then you open the door for that mandatory 10,20,30 year sentence to be applied to the poor schmuck who stops for coffee with a gun in the car in some place where that's verboten.


You have to think of the unintended consequences and how a law is likely to be used by those who wish to disarm us.

 

[Kjervin]

+1 Zundfolge

Remember that the people who have good intentions writing the laws might not be the same people interpreting the law or enforcing it down the line. Many examples exist of people finding novel new uses for old laws that weren't the original intention of the law when passed.

Kj

 

[femoralis]

One thing to consider is that attacks with a gun are statistically more likely to kill than with other weapons... so you could say that the perp was intending to murder, rather than injure. This would seem to justify a more harsh punishment.

 

[Zundfolge]

The law should punish people for what they do.


Not what they think
Not what tools they carried
Not the use or non-use of insults/harsh language during the attack
Not the their age/race/gender/sexual orientation/physical condition
Not the age/race/gender/sexual orientation/physical condition of their victim
Not based on the quality of their childhood
Not based on what they had for dinner
Not the party affiliation of the local DA
Not based on the phase of the moon


Actions are what should be punished.

 

[Jubei]

You said it yourself bubba;

"I simply mean how long should the minimum sentence be for a crime commited with a gun. Not that a murder,rape,home invasion with any other weapon should be treated with less severity."

If you set a mandatory minimum for a crime committed with a gun, and you treat a similar crime with no less severity, then why wouldn't you simply set a mandatory minimum sentence period. If someone commits a crime that, by its audacity, would indicate a willingness to use violence, then the tool is insignifigant. Punish the criminal for his intent and actions, not what he carried at the time.

Jubei

 

[Graystar]

From reading the replys(which I enjoy)it seems alot of people thought that I meant that gun crimes should be punished more severely than other crimes of the same magnitude. I simply mean how long should the minimum sentence be for a crime commited with a gun.

It's the same thing. As I said...there are no violent crimes that can only be committed with a gun. Any crime that can be committed with a gun, can be committed with any other weapon. There's no such thing as violent "gun crime".

 

[Standing Wolf]

Hello, Zundfolge!

You have to think of the unintended consequences and how a law is likely to be used by those who wish to disarm us.

You've just changed my mind. Doesn't happen very often, but when it does, it definitely does.

Thanks, eh?

 

[silverlance]

umm..

there are plenty of violent crimes that can only be committed with a gun. try sniping from the hills like that wierd father and son pair did a few years ago with a razor blade or pair of brass knuckles...

although I guess you could argue that a longbow would work just as well...

um, yeah.

ps: don't mean to say that laws should be made specifically targeting gun wielding offenders... although i'm not sure the idiot who holds up a bank with an ak and in body armor should be given only the same amount of years as the guy who holds up a bank with a banana...

personally, I think prison colonies should be brought back. i'm sure there are lots of good volcanic islands... either that or they could be packed off to china to work off their debt to society.

 

[ConcernedCitizen]

there are plenty of violent crimes that can only be committed with a gun. try sniping from the hills like that wierd father and son pair did a few years ago with a razor blade or pair of brass knuckles...

Murdering someone with a rifle is still considered murder, correct?

And people can also be murdered with razor blades and brass knuckles, correct?

I fail to see how the tool used to commit the crime makes the crime any different.

Ask yourself this... Is it still speeding if you are riding a motorcycle instead of driving a car?

 

[MudPuppy]

Yeah, they didn't nail those guys for "sniping at long range"--they nailed 'em for Murder.

I totally agree the law should be consistent with the crime. Why is worse for someone to slap a "insert racial type here" because of their race than it is to slap someone because they're just prone to violence? We're way off the path...

 

[Billmanweh]

given the choice between being carjacked at brass knuckle point or gun point, I'll take the former.

 

[Red Dragon]

I personally believe the weapon used in the comission of crime shouldn't really matter in most cases. If someone kills a guy with a handgun, rifle or giant novelty toothbrush, the guy is still dead and the other guy still killed him. Dead is dead in my opinion. The punishment should fit the crime. Torture and murder should get more punishment than just murder, but I don't think, in most cases at least, the weapon should be that much of a factor.

 

[Billmanweh]

well, I think the reasoning behind it is this. if you carjack someone with a gun, you have a higher potential for violence/injury/death than if you carjack someone with a giant novelty toothbrush. so maybe by increasing the penalty for committing a crime with a gun, you could make someone think twice before using a gun in a crime. or something like that.

 

[Zundfolge]

Torture and murder should get more punishment than just murder...

I agree ... we should punish actions not intentions etc. But let me ask this; is shooting someone in head is more or less "torture" then slicing their midsection open and letting them bleed out?

I think the reasoning behind it is this. if you carjack someone with a gun, you have a higher potential for violence/injury/death than if you carjack someone with a giant novelty toothbrush.

The interesting thing there is that if you are robbed at gunpoint you are less likely to be injured then if you're robbed at knife point or by someone with a bludgeon ... this is because with a gun you're more likely to comply and hand your stuff over.

Statistically when a robber uses a knife, club or brute strength (especially a club or brute strength) he's more likely to strike with his weapon, THEN take your money off your lifeless body, but with a gun he's more likely to point it at you and threaten to shoot you if you don't hand it over.


Honestly I would rather more criminals where armed with guns then knives and clubs.


Increased penalties for "gun crime" are not designed to make the world a safer place, they are designed to punish people for using "unholy artifacts".

 

[Zundfolge]

Then you are inept

Edited to remove non High Road reply to non High Road comment

have you ever had a jumping, twitching, nutcase point a cocked gun at you?

Yes, I have. And had the punk had a knife or club he would have just stabbed or hit me or the friend who was with me at the time ... there would have been no opportunity to break his leg. Taking a gun away from someone is infinitely easier then taking a knife (not that either is "easy" or without risk).

The potential for an unintentional disaster is definitely higher with the gun in the attacker's hand.

Not according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Report (and sited by John Lott in More Guns, Less Crime), an attacker using a non-firearm weapon is MORE LIKELY TO STRIKE FIRST then someone using a firearm (who is more likely to just point the gun at you and demand your money).

 

[Zundfolge]

Way to respond without actualy reading my post.


1st off, I gotta love your "blame the victim" mentality ... I guess everyone who is ever robbed just had it coming because they are "inept"

2nd, bye bye Gunkid

 

[Zundfolge]

Well hell ... now I look like I'm all talking to myself and stuff

 

[Graystar]

if you carjack someone with a gun, you have a higher potential for violence/injury/death than if you carjack someone with a giant novelty toothbrush.

According to the National Crime Victimization Survey (performed by the Bureau of Justice Statistics) that statement couldn’t be further from the truth. Injuries to victims occur nearly half as many times when the attacker wields a gun as when the attacker wields a non-firearm weapon.

 

[bogie]

I don't think you're getting it.

There is no "gun crime." That's a term invented by city folks who seem to think that guns cause crime. The same folks who seem to think that "gun safety" and "gun used for defense" are somehow evil concepts.

Please go troll somewhere else.

 

[Zundfolge]

Please go troll somewhere else.

Who's trolling?

other then diddly (who apparently was really Gunkid who was banned for the umpteenth time and his posts before and after post #15, and after post #16 have disappeared with his banning)