A Sane Discussion About Gun Violence

[Sparko]

Only if it's an actual deterrent, but I mentioned something about that in the post you're replying to.

I think it is worth a try. Do you think banning guns is an actual deterrent to a criminal?

[Adrift]

I think it is worth a try. Do you think banning guns is an actual deterrent to a criminal?

Yes.

[Mountain Man]

I made another proposal I'd be curious to know how it would be received: I wonder if people would not be a lot more careful with their firearms if the on-record owner of the gun faced the same penalty (or at least SOME penalty) as the person using it to commit a crime? Thoughts? (and yes, I know we lack the data for this as well).

That's as stupid as indiscriminately punishing manufacturers and retailers if a gun they sold is used to commit a crime. Punish the guy who used the gun in a criminal fashion and not the innocent people who sold it to him, or who he stole it from.

Now if someone gave or sold him a gun knowing that he was planning to a commit a crime then certainly, they should be charged as an accessory.

[Littlejoe]

Making sentences for using a gun in the commision of a crime more harsh, longer and without possibility of parole, may or may not have a deterrence effect...but, if the sentence is long enough, it will definitely have a prevention effect...and since 57% of criminals reoffend (FBI stats) and are sent back to prison, then they are not in the "Free World" to commit another gun related crime.

[demi-conservative]

Okay, let's pretend libs-in-charge don't hate conservatives, also want to disarm them.

Also lets pretend libs care about in actual laws, also enforcing them.

Let's pretend libs care about why FBI, also sheriff, ignored reports. Also why deputy sheriff didn't help.

Let's pretend libs care about why school knew guy was threat but didn't report previous offenses of his to police.

Let's pretend libs care about why shooter, also others, get into suicidal murderous rage, about why he had no healthy relationship of family, religion, friends, community, women, why alienated.

Let's pretend libs care about why shooter, also others, often in therapy, also drugged.

Let's pretend libs care about fact that guns used a lot for self-defense, especially helpful for women.

Let's pretend libs care about fact that criminal gun violence mostly by gangs, minority gangs.

Okay, now let's have ''''''''''sane'''''''' discussion!!!

[Cow Poke]

That's as stupid as indiscriminately punishing manufacturers and retailers if a gun they sold is used to commit a crime. Punish the guy who used the gun in a criminal fashion and not the innocent people who sold it to him, or who he stole it from.

Now if someone gave or sold him a gun knowing that he was planning to a commit a crime then certainly, they should be charged as an accessory.

I'll go further - if somebody is negligent in the storage or control of their firearms, and they are used in the commission of a crime....

[Cow Poke]

Making sentences for using a gun in the commision of a crime more harsh, longer and without possibility of parole, may or may not have a deterrence effect...but, if the sentence is long enough, it will definitely have a prevention effect...and since 57% of criminals reoffend (FBI stats) and are sent back to prison, then they are not in the "Free World" to commit another gun related crime.

That's similar to the argument concerning capital punishment... even if you proved it was not a deterrent to other criminals, the criminal who is in prison awaiting execution is not out in the public causing more deaths.

[Sparko]

Yes.

Considering the number of illegal guns already in circulation among the criminal element, how do you think it would be a deterrent? Why would they stop using guns just because they were banned?

[Sparko]

Making sentences for using a gun in the commision of a crime more harsh, longer and without possibility of parole, may or may not have a deterrence effect...but, if the sentence is long enough, it will definitely have a prevention effect...and since 57% of criminals reoffend (FBI stats) and are sent back to prison, then they are not in the "Free World" to commit another gun related crime.

True. Or we could do like they used to do to thieves: Cut off their hands.

[carpedm9587]

Which takes it back to my original question. Why is the cop always blamed and not the gun, but in school situations, it's not the shooter, it's the gun.

Racial issues may have a lot to do with it in a police situation, but I don't believe it's the entire issue.

I don't think your characterization is accurate. When it is officer-involved shooter - it is about the officer because the gun is part of the officer's toolkit for dealing with situations. The idea of an unarmed police force is a bit odd, though not unheard of. When the shooting is a school situation, both the gun and the shooter become issues. The shooter is to blame for shooting (and I have never seen anyone "absolve" the shooter in these situations), but we also have to ask the question, "how did they get the gun?" and "should they have been able to get it?" So for school shootings, both the gun and the shooter are a potential issue.

[Cow Poke]

Considering the number of illegal guns already in circulation among the criminal element, how do you think it would be a deterrent? Why would they stop using guns just because they were banned?

Do criminals still use guns in cities and jurisdictions where they are banned?

[carpedm9587]

In many jurisdictions, that's what the "aggravated" is in a robbery or theft. The addition of a gun 'upgrades' the offense, for example, from 'robbery' to 'aggravated robbery'. (Other factors are involved in 'aggravated', such as the difference between a burglary and an aggravated burglary - the latter being, for example, the burglary of an occupied building or home)

I'm really rethinking this "automatic going to jail" thing - because I know what goes on "in jail". Somebody who makes a really stupid decision ends up in a place where they learn how to make even bigger stupid decisions.

I hear that. But don't talk too loud - that's a really "progressive" and "liberal" point of view

I know of places where the model is: make restitution. So if the person murdered a father, they have to take financial responsibility for the family, etc. I don't know how practical that would be in the U.S., but I have to admit there is a sense of true justice to it.

I think, just like the owner of a vehicle that is used in a vehicular homicide - it needs to be shown that the owner was negligent in securing that vehicle. Same with a gun owner. Rather than being automatically culpable, there needs to be some evidence that he was negligent in securing or controlling the use of his firearms.

I'd even be 'for' the process to be more strict on the gun owner than the car owner, but we are still a nation of "presumption of innocence".

Agreed. Clearly, a gun that has been stolen and used for a crime should not go back to the owner unless it can be shown the owner was negligent in securing the firearm. And an owner could not be held responsible, for example, if someone broke into their house, and held a knife to the throat of a family member threatening harm unless they turned over their firearms. Negligence would have to be shown. And if a firearm is stolen, and reported as such, there should be some slack cut.

[Mountain Man]

I'll go further - if somebody is negligent in the storage or control of their firearms, and they are used in the commission of a crime....

I had considered that, but you would need to strictly define "negligent". For example, is it negligent to keep a gun unsecured in your own home? When I was growing up, my dad had a shotgun that he kept disassembled in a closet (he only used it for hunting). If someone broke into our house and stole it, would my dad have been guilty of negligence?

[carpedm9587]

I wish you guys would stop with this gun "violence" nonsense. When someone gets killed with a bat or knife do you call it knife or bat violence?

First - my request was for respectful exchanges on this thread. Calling someone else's position "nonsense" kind of skates close to the edge of disrespectful. Please be careful.

Second - I cannot say I see a problem with the term "gun violence." We are not talking about all violence - we are talking about violence related to firearms. "Gun violence" would seem an appropriate descriptor. If we were talking about violence asociated with knoves, we would probably call it "knife violence."

However, in the spirit of keeping this as agreeable as possible - if you have a serious issue with the term - propose another one. I cannot speak for everyone - but I can commit to using it myself.

[carpedm9587]

so if you got burglarized and someone else used your gun to commit a crime, you should go to jail? Does that sound fair to you?

See my response to CP.