Why Not A War On ILLEGAL firearms?

This is a discussion on Why Not A War On ILLEGAL firearms? within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; It is all after the fact. Which is fine. Absolutely zero prevention. Fine with me. Keeps me in business. It's too bad, because 95% of ...

Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 120

Thread: Why Not A War On ILLEGAL firearms?

  1. #61
    Senior Member Array dcb188's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Mid-Cape Cod, Mass.
    Posts
    861
    It is all after the fact. Which is fine. Absolutely zero prevention. Fine with me. Keeps me in business. It's too bad, because 95% of the folks I see are very salvageable.
    As a society, we react to things. We never look at preventive steps, except for our trucks and cars, and we need a new roof, we don't wait til the water starts pouring in.
    But as a society we will not look into why things happen, we let them happen and clean up afterwards. This is why I have handled 22,000 criminal cases from June 5, 1979 to May 24, 2008. Keeps ME busy. I just thought there was some way to prevent the crime or to at least be interested in looking into it.
    Everything is after the fact and if that is the best we can do as a civilization, good luck to all of us. We need it.
    This is my last post on this thread before Kerbouchard calls me a Keyboard Attorney again, as on a thread the other day involving some other controversial subject (what isn't?) (which actually I kind of liked, as people might think I am in some big rock band) :)
    Last edited by dcb188; May 24th, 2008 at 01:50 PM. Reason: typo, as usual.
    Surrounded and outnumbered, Marine Col Lewis Puller: "Good! We finally got 'em where we want 'em!" (Korea, 1950)
    __________________________________
    Right is Wrong and Wrong is Right.
    __________________________________
    Socrates : "Knowledge is knowing that we know nothing".

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #62
    Member Array AgentX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    476
    Quote Originally Posted by Kerbouchard View Post
    We should have extraordinarily severe punishment for the commission of any crime, period. I don't think the presence of a gun makes a crime worse.

    I think we should have extraordinarily severe punishment for the commission of a crime involving a baseball bat, or a tire iron, or stomping somebody to death.(and bow&arrows, and rocks, and anything else that is used to maliciously injure somebody)
    Sounds great. However, we're limited by our resources to police and incarcerate.

    Given that reality and the fact that there will always be criminals on the streets regardless of the penalty, having a disparate punishment for the use of a gun serves as a deterrent to its use.

    If it was a life sentence for theft, there'd still be plenty of thieves, both in jail for life and on the streets.

    And even if we executed them all or cut off their hands, there'd still be thieves...and much more desperate ones, probably heavily armed and willing to kill any number of people to stay out of the hands of authorities.

    So a heavier penalty for the use of a gun makes actual sense.

  4. #63
    VIP Member Array Kerbouchard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,894
    Quote Originally Posted by AgentX View Post
    Sounds great. However, we're limited by our resources to police and incarcerate.

    Given that reality and the fact that there will always be criminals on the streets regardless of the penalty, having a disparate punishment for the use of a gun serves as a deterrent to its use.

    If it was a life sentence for theft, there'd still be plenty of thieves, both in jail for life and on the streets.

    And even if we executed them all or cut off their hands, there'd still be thieves...and much more desperate ones, probably heavily armed and willing to kill any number of people to stay out of the hands of authorities.

    So a heavier penalty for the use of a gun makes actual sense.
    Your fourth paragraph also applies to your fifth.

    I guess I just don't see how it is any more humane to kill somebody with a baseball bat vs killing somebody with a gun.

    Equal time for equal crimes. Equal being a lot!
    There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.

    http://miscmusings.townhall.com/

    Who is John Galt?

  5. #64
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Kerbouchard View Post
    Your fourth paragraph also applies to your fifth.

    I guess I just don't see how it is any more humane to kill somebody with a baseball bat vs killing somebody with a gun.

    Equal time for equal crimes. Equal being a lot!
    It is true that there is no difference between murdering someone with a bat or a gun. There is a difference in the threat between someone robbing you holding a bat or a gun. You can kill someone with a pencil, too. Which would be more of a threat: a guy robbing you at pencil point or gun point?

    Further, most criminals that use a gun do not actually fire it. They terrorize the victim with a lethal threat that can be implemented at distance. If you're four feet away from the guy with the bat you are not in immediate danger. (You know what I mean...) But the gun is lethal from a much longer distance and through concealment.

    Using a gun while committing a crime should have a minimum mandatory sentence of fifteen years. Give him to Arpaio and let every thug in America know the consequences for their actions.

  6. #65
    VIP Member Array Kerbouchard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,894
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    It is true that there is no difference between murdering someone with a bat or a gun. There is a difference in the threat between someone robbing you holding a bat or a gun. You can kill someone with a pencil, too. Which would be more of a threat: a guy robbing you at pencil point or gun point?

    Further, most criminals that use a gun do not actually fire it. They terrorize the victim with a lethal threat that can be implemented at distance. If you're four feet away from the guy with the bat you are not in immediate danger. (You know what I mean...) But the gun is lethal from a much longer distance and through concealment.

    Using a gun while committing a crime should have a minimum mandatory sentence of fifteen years. Give him to Arpaio and let every thug in America know the consequences for their actions.
    Ok, so the slippery slope. Robbing somebody at gunpoint gets you an automatic 15 years if caught. Murder is getting you 5-10 right now(I understand that in your 'minimum sentence' that he would get 15 for murder). Hmmm, should we leave a witness or not? If the penalty for the threat of an action becomes the same as the act, will that increase the act?

    Look, it's pretty simple to me. They say over 85% of murders are caused by repeat offenders, a large portion of those on a suspended sentence, on probation, or on parole.

    If they were locked up where they should be, they would not have the opportunity to commit a crime.

    A crime requires a motive, the ability, and the opportunity.
    The motive is easy for a criminal to rationalize.
    The ability is easy to come by...be it a stick, a butcher knife, a baseball bat, or a firearm.

    The opportunity is the only thing we can take away from the equation. Both by being more aware of our surroundings when we are out and about and keeping the savages behind bars where they belong.

    It makes no sense to me to restrict a prior felon's right to own a gun. If he is out of prison, he should be rehabilitated and all rights restored. If he is not rehabilitated and will most likely commit a crime again, then he should not be out of prison.
    There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.

    http://miscmusings.townhall.com/

    Who is John Galt?

  7. #66
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Kerbouchard View Post
    Ok, so the slippery slope. Robbing somebody at gunpoint gets you an automatic 15 years if caught. Murder is getting you 5-10 right now(I understand that in your 'minimum sentence' that he would get 15 for murder). Hmmm, should we leave a witness or not? If the penalty for the threat of an action becomes the same as the act, will that increase the act?
    I would support capital punishment for murder. Your argument is the same I've heard concerning capital punishment for child rapists (which I support.) I think the argument is unsubstantiated and the most severe punishment would serve as a deterrent to rape. If you had a law that if a child was raped on Tuesday or Fridays the criminal received a death sentence but any other day would be 5-10, no child would be raped on Tuesdays or Fridays.

    It makes no sense to me to restrict a prior felon's right to own a gun. If he is out of prison, he should be rehabilitated and all rights restored. If he is not rehabilitated and will most likely commit a crime again, then he should not be out of prison.
    I disagree. Whether he is in or out of prison he is a violent criminal. Serving his sentence pays a debt to society but does not change the individual. Choosing that criminal path should have consequences for life.

  8. #67
    Member Array AgentX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    476
    Quote Originally Posted by Kerbouchard View Post
    I guess I just don't see how it is any more humane to kill somebody with a baseball bat vs killing somebody with a gun.
    It's not. I never said it was. You drew that conclusion because it's the argument you want to make. But it's not the issue at hand.

  9. #68
    VIP Member Array Kerbouchard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,894
    Quote Originally Posted by AgentX View Post
    It's not. I never said it was. You drew that conclusion because it's the argument you want to make. But it's not the issue at hand.
    Then I guess I don't understand the issue at hand.(and for once, I'm not just being argumentative. I literally don't understand why a crime with a gun is worse than a crime with any other object)

    I don't see how the tool used to commit a crime should have any bearing on the penalty for that crime.
    There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.

    http://miscmusings.townhall.com/

    Who is John Galt?

  10. #69
    Member Array AgentX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    476
    Where did I say it was a worse crime? You are stuck in a retributive mindset.

    I was discussing the incentive and deterrent effects of the law.

  11. #70
    VIP Member Array Kerbouchard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,894
    Quote Originally Posted by AgentX View Post
    Where did I say it was a worse crime? You are stuck in a retributive mindset.

    I was discussing the incentive and deterrent effects of the law.
    Are you actually proposing that a stiffer punishment will deter crime?

    The criminal does not think he is going to get caught...hence the reason he breaks the law in the first place.

    In Singapore the crime for possesion of narcotics is death. The first cab I got into the cab driver asked me if I wanted meth...and I was in Dress Whites.

    Armed citizens deter violent crime. Punishments if a criminal gets caught does not.

    And assuming it did work. Assuming all criminals got rid of all of their guns overnight because of new stricter sentenceing...We would just see an increase in stabbings and beatings with blunt objects.
    There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.

    http://miscmusings.townhall.com/

    Who is John Galt?

  12. #71
    Member Array AgentX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    476
    Quote Originally Posted by Kerbouchard View Post
    Are you actually proposing that a stiffer punishment will deter crime?
    Not saying it will deter crime per se, but will deter the use or carrying of firearms by many criminals in the commission of a crime.

    Someone planning murder will use a gun or anything else that fits the plan; someone in a crime of passion will use whatever's at hand. Not really what I'm talking about here; these crimes already do receive the stiffest penalties our society is dealing out.

    Someone planning a robbery or other less severe crime, however, is less likely to carry a gun if it significantly increases his risk of hard time. These aren't generally crimes of opportunity or passion. There's at least a modicum of pre-planning that goes into these, even at the lowest level. (Smash-and-grab auto theft aside, probably, and even then, criminals think about risk-benefit before and during the act.)

    So since I take it for granted that the criminals are out there and will always be out there...we can't reduce their numbers by attrition...I say we influence them to not use a gun for criminal purposes. True, you can kill someone by any number of means, but having a gun involved makes death much easier and more probable than with a baseball bat, especially when the goal of the crime itself isn't purely violence (murder/assault for its own sake).

    The solution to crime, as much as one exists, is a social-economic issue. Law enforcement and personal self-defense are reactive, retributive actions in response to crime, and aren't the primary way to prevent crime in the first place.

  13. #72
    VIP Member Array LongRider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,618
    Quote Originally Posted by dcb188 View Post
    I meant illegal use of a gun,
    Those laws are already in place. It is illegal to assault rob rape murder anyone. If a gun is used in a crime the penalty is "supposed" to increase dramatically.
    [QUOTE=dcb188;732888]
    But to rephrase so it is absolutely and unequivocally correct, do you think we should try to seek out and confiscate illegally POSSESSED firearms or just ignore the daily violence etc./QUOTE]
    Any gun used in a crime is destroyed, including those found to be in possession of some one who should not have a gun. Although "illegal gun possession" concept makes no sense to me. The war on drugs analogy is not a good one IMO. For one we lost or are loosing that one. Second, many drugs if not most in and of themselves are inherently dangerous. With no redeeming value or use. Those drug cause serious damage not only to the user but all those around the user. Which is why the substance is illegal, guns are not inherently dangerous to all those around one and does have valuable uses and benefits. But most important as has already been stated rather eloquently it is the behaviour not the guns that are the problem. Which is why gun control laws do not work, never will, Focus on the behavior not the object.
    IMO if we really want to reduce violence in our society. We should look at places that have less gun violence per capita than we do. Like Finland or Sweden which are countries we do not think of in association to gun violence because there is very little if none in those countries. Maybe we should do as they do, which is every household has two or threes. One of which is a combat ready full automatic. In every house even those with convicted criminals.
    There has been a war on illegal guns for decades by the Brady Bunch and a multitude of gun control fanatics. Have been the hostile force claiming they have the high moral ground because they want to stop violence. This year alone they and their gun control laws have been the cause of over a hundred, young men, women and children. Butchered like sheep in a slaughter house. ow many more of our children do we need to see butchered before we wake and address the real problems. One of which is there are far to few armed law abiding citizens. With far to many restrictions on the that do.
    Abort the Obamanation not the Constitution

    Those who would, deny, require permit, license, certification, or authorization for me to bear arms are as vile, dangerous & evil as those who would molest, abuse, assault, rape or murder my family

  14. #73
    VIP Member Array Kerbouchard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,894
    AgentX,

    Ok, I see where you are coming from, now, and I can agree with most of it.

    It stealing a stereo out of a car turns into 10 years just because he had a gun with him, there is a very good chance he would not bring a gun to steal stereos.

    It won't stop him from stealing the stereo, but it could possibly stop a stereo theft from turning into a shooting.
    There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.

    http://miscmusings.townhall.com/

    Who is John Galt?

  15. #74
    VIP Member Array SIGguy229's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Kommie-fornia-stan
    Posts
    7,045
    Quote Originally Posted by dcb188 View Post
    We think that any effort to rid thugs of the guns THEY have, automatically means that we will have ours taken away.
    One is legal the other is illegal.
    So it seems odd to say that by allowing thugs to have guns, we thereby preserve our rights to have our legally possessed guns. By protecting the thug's rights we protect our own.
    Umm...the gun isn't illegal. It's the owner that is prohibited from owning/possessing a firearm. The problem isn't the gun, it's the person holding it--ergo, the gun cannot be illegal (CA, NY, IL, NJ, MD notwithstanding)
    Magazine <> clip - know the difference

    martyr is a fancy name for crappy fighter
    You have never lived until you have almost died. For those that have fought for it, life has a special flavor the protected will never know

  16. #75
    VIP Member Array SIGguy229's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Kommie-fornia-stan
    Posts
    7,045
    [QUOTE=dcb188;733552]It is all after the fact. Which is fine. Absolutely zero prevention. Fine with me. Keeps me in business. It's too bad, because 95% of the folks I see are very salvageable.
    As a society, we react to things. We never look at preventive steps, except for our trucks and cars, and we need a new roof, we don't wait til the water starts pouring in. [QUOTE]

    Um...is it up to society to change a person, or is that an individual responsibility? I think that is the crux of your arguement. Individual responsibility versus government control. While the people you deal with might be salvageable, is it really society's responsibility to salvage them?

    Can you prevent crime? or do you deter crime?

    Society (through laws) can only dictate the punishments to be meted out if one were to violate the standards of behavior commonly accepted by society. However, these laws much conform to the letter and intent of the U.S. Constitution. No ex post facto laws; 4th and 5th Amendment guarentees if accused of a crime--no prior restraint. One must be accused of a committing a criminal act, versus "we think he/she might commit a crime with [insert inanimate object here]".

    I see you are in MA...I recommend you see how places like PA, VA, WV, IN readily accept gun owners and personal responsibility.
    Magazine <> clip - know the difference

    martyr is a fancy name for crappy fighter
    You have never lived until you have almost died. For those that have fought for it, life has a special flavor the protected will never know

Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Federal agents ordered to allow illegal firearms purchases in Arizona
    By loboleather in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: March 7th, 2011, 12:41 AM
  2. Bill O'Reilly Defends Illegal Seizures of Firearms
    By Diesel 007 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 71
    Last Post: March 1st, 2010, 05:05 PM
  3. 12 Elements of Firearms Training "The dozen critical elements of modern firearms trai
    By DCJS Instructor in forum Defensive Carry & Tactical Training
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: December 4th, 2009, 03:32 PM
  4. Another Illegal shoots LEO
    By trayzor in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: March 13th, 2009, 10:18 PM
  5. Replies: 22
    Last Post: April 20th, 2007, 04:33 PM

Search tags for this page

crimes committed with illegal guns

Click on a term to search for related topics.