What gun control measures do you support?

[Happiness Is A Warm Gun]

OK--since it looks like the primary bone of contention among us is the "violent felons should have guns/violent felons should not have guns" issue, I have a realistic question for the "no restrictions ever" crowd:

That is the million dollar (billion dollar?) question.
If felons are to get 100% gun rights the second they come out of the door then prison sentences should be substantially longer (maybe as much as 5x longer) to account for the felons who (at an alarmingly high rate) do re-offend.

The problem is that will not stand up to constitutional scrutiny. Trying to give someone 50 to life for 1st time armed robbery likely will result in an appeal all the way to SCOTUS who will rule "it is cruel and unusual punishment".

While 70%+ of violent felons do re-offend that means 30% don't and they are paying an "unusal" price for other peoples crimes.

I think a good compramise is reasonable sentence and long probation.

Right now 5yrs + never have firearm. Usually for most within 6 months they re-offend (a lot w/ firearm).

I would change that to 15 year sentence w/ 10 on those years suspended as probation. Same amount of time BUT since felon is in probation their movements, actions, rights can be controlled. They are simply serving part of their sentence at home, in halfway house, under supervision instead of being in prison.

Do to the combination of:
Cruel & Unusual Punishment = unconstitutional.
Prohibiting a Citizen from having firearm = unconstitutional.

IMHO this is the only measure that is constitutional.

Criminals on probation CAN constitutionally have their rights infringed. Why? They are still inmates, they just happen to not be in jail. Their sentence was 15 years. Until they serve every day (either in jail or on probation) they haven't "paid their debt to society". It is a privilege to be at home and not in jail for last 10 years on a 15/10 suspended sentence. If they don't like the restricts they are free to return to prison for the remaining 10 years and when they serve the full 15 have all their rights back.

The probation/parole system should get MUCH more funding.
Substantial drug checks = their is high correlation between drug absue & violent crime.
Anger management
Job Counseling /assistance = there is a high correlation between lack of gainful employment & violent crime.

If at anytime the inmates doesn't want to put up with the restrictions on his/her movement, behavior, rights they are free to return to prison. Once their time is served (either all 15 in prison, or 5 in prison + 10 parole) they have all their rights returned.

In someone hasn't offended again in 10 years, now has good job, no substance abuse problems, owns property, is financial secure then likely they are the 30% that won't offend. I have no problem with them owning a firearm.

 

[TAB]

So when some one has done thier "time" they are to be trusted.

When do you want a convicted serail rapist to move in with you and your faimly? He can be trusted with a gun after all, he must be able to be trusted with your wife or duaghter.

 

[General Geoff]

TAB, how does the right to purchase and own a gun equate to the privilege of living in the same house as me and my family? You're really losing me here.

 

[Officers'Wife]

Hi Scoutsout,

I'm truly curious to see what your alternative solutions would be.

It's simple yet complex. To start take the law out of the hands of the lawyers and put them back in the hands of the people.
Repeal three quarters of the criminal code until all that is left are crimes against the person and property. Doing that frees up the time of enforcement to concentrate on the crimes that actually insult the peace and dignity of a peaceful society. Making the odds of getting away with such crimes much less.

Get rid of 'let's make a deal' prosecution. Plea bargins deny even the illusion of justice and make the court system a joke.

Item last: elimination of 'good time' for incarcerated felons. Substitute, further prosecution of unacceptable behaviors inside the prison system either though the legal system or administration that a quilty verdict would yeild even more time behind bars.

Selena

 

[TAB]

TAB, how does the right to purchase and own a gun equate to the privilege of living in the same house as me and my family? You're really losing me here.

Let me put it another way.

lets just say your CPA, got cuaght cheating on his clients taxs, inculding yours. Not only that, but he embesled money from you. he goes to jail, for lets say 5 years. Gets out, calls you saying "hey, I'm out and starting back up my partice, will you let me do your taxs again?

Do you let him do them?

 

[NG VI]

WOW 66% of THR members have bought the liberal line and believe at least some form of gun control works

I just think it would be great if we would actually enforce sentencing laws we have for known criminals caught doing bad stuff while armed. It's just a good way to keep them locked up longer. I don't really support anything else, junk gun laws are almost always a euphimism for "let's start at jennings and work our way up to Taurus and Rossi, then in five years we will get Ruger, Glock, and CZ"

 

[General Geoff]

Do you let him do them?

How does the right to purchase and own a gun equate to the privilege of doing my taxes?


Rights are not negotiable. Private contracts are.

 

[308win]

As it stands, existing laws aren't a deterrent to persons with criminal intent, and none of the alternatives will cause a prohibited person from acquiring a firearm if they so choose. Any law is going to result in another charge to add additional time if convicted.

 

[71Commander]

What is there to explain? How does anyone tell who can be trusted, and when? Would you prefer that every violent felon simply be locked up for the rest of their lives, to play it safe?

Not a bad idea.

 

[TAB]

Not a bad idea.

so tell us how much do you want YOUR taxs raised to pay for that?

 

[71Commander]

Eliminate most social programs to deadbeats. Make em get a job.

 

[fspitzdorf]

Absolutely none. As far as ex felons are concerned. If they are fit enough to return to society then they have obviously been reformed and are therefore worthy enough to possess and use any firearm responsibly. No you say? Then keep them locked up until they are. Simple.

 

[Drgong]

In many states felons are NOT given full rights folks - and it is fully legal. In NC they have decided to give rights after probation, but if a state says a felon cannot vote, guess what, it is LEGAL to do so.

Vote = gun ownership, and don't allow felons to vote till they proven themselves as good members of society.

 

[Scoutsout2645]

Happiness Is A Warm Gun
Senior Member

While 70%+ of violent felons do re-offend that means 30% don't and they are paying an "unusal" price

Actually, since restrictions are applied uniformly to all violent felons, it would not constitute unusual punishment. An argument could be made at "cruel punishment" but since that usually refers to psychologically and physically damaging punishment, not revocations of liberty, the SCOTUS probably wouldn't buy it (if it went that far).

The problem is not LE or the penal system, it is the taxpayers that protest when politicians either raise taxes or appear "soft" on crime. Here in NJ, some counties (typically the urban "blue" counties) have tried an experiment with "drug courts" which handle drug cases (which tend to have the highest recidivism rates) only and require a combination of treatment and monitoring over incarceration. It is initially more expensive per convict, but boasts a lower recidivism rate making it cheaper in the long run. However, it faces a lot of opposition in other counties (typically suburban/rurual "red" ones) because it "puts those druggies back on the streets" and requires higher taxes because treatment and job training cost more than warehousing (of course, in the long term, costs will eventually go down as imprisoned drug offenders get released, re-enter the system through the drug courts, and eventually stop re-offending at such high rates). Since most politicians won't last the years it would take to see concrete results from this program due to "voter anger", the traditional concept of imprisonment stays in place and the problem doesn't get fixed.

The quote "freedom isn't free" is very popular until it starts to hit your wallet.

For Officer's Wife:

Repeal three quarters of the criminal code until all that is left are crimes against the person and property. Doing that frees up the time of enforcement....Making the odds of getting away with such crimes much less.

I'm assuming that what you're referring to is A) traffic laws, B) drug laws and C) crimes of office (bribery, official misconduct, etc) since the rest of the criminal code is ONLY crimes against people and property. By the way the last two are closer to around 15% of the code, not 75% as you allege (traffic laws are separate from criminal laws).

I would love to debate the consequences of eliminating ANY regulation of our driving conduct with you, but that's WAAAY off topic. I would also debate the merits of total legalization of all drugs, which you clearly endorse, but again we're getting off topic. As far as "getting away" with crimes, the problem is not the numbers of crimes on the books. It is an issue of a lack of evidence, lack of witnesses, legal restrictions on "proof", legal limitations on "probable cause" limiting our ability to search or question...indeed a broad spectrum of limitations on the agents of the State that, I have no doubt, you yourself would probably endorse on strict Constitutionalist grounds (oddly, putting yourself in the same bed as the ACLU, just climbing in from the other side.)

Item last: elimination of 'good time' for incarcerated felons. Substitute, further prosecution of unacceptable behaviors inside the prison system either though the legal system or administration that a quilty verdict would yeild even more time behind bars.

And we're back to funding...the real reason for pleas, "good time", early parole, etc. is that THESE THINGS SAVE TAXPAYER DOLLARS BY REDUCING INCARCERATION COSTS. I kicked around some numbers (non-scientifically) recently to examine the effect of extended incarceration and, just for NJ, came up with an annual taxpayer hit of $5-1200 depending on the percentages you use for recidivism rates and numbers of taxpayers. I did NOT factor in the costs of having to build additional prisons and the costs of their support infrastructure. This cost would also go up annually with inflation. I know any politician pulling that here would have a very short career....how would that fly in YOUR state?
Also this goes back to releasing inmates into the public with no parole monitoring (not that THAT is very effective currently, anyway). If you serve 10 years of a 10 yr sentence because you're a problem child inside or because of mandatory minimums, you get put out on the streets with absolutely NO supervision, NO restrictions and NO accountability beyond what you had BEFORE you went to prison--and if you had to go to prison in the first place, we all know that those restrictions clearly had no effect.

 

[Soybomb]

So for the now 254 of you who said "Convicted, violent felons only." I feel like I have to ask you the same question I ask antis all the time. Why do you think the guy thats planning to either do or threaten violence on another person with a gun will respect the laws that say he cannot have a gun? It seems like the guy who is willing to point a gun at me and possibly pull the trigger isn't going to be bothered by gun ownership laws any more than breaking the speed limit. If it won't keep them from owning a gun (and I think we'd agree that the bad guys will get guns) then whats the point?

Gun control doesn't stop criminal behavior.

 

[CliffH]

.....would you accept that all violent felons get a long probation with a rule that they cannot own a firearm as part of the probation?

If it's part of their original sentence. Our laws and sentencing requirments need a major overhaul.

B) the average prisoner costs between 20-40K per year to incarcerate, and to expand the already overwhelmed probation system nationally would (conservatively) cost millions--the costs of which would have to be supported by tax increases that you and I would have to pay.

There are numerous ways a prison can be made to pay for itself. Farming, assembly line work, light manufacturing (kids toys maybe) are just a few that came to mind as I'm typing. And I don't see how anyone could call having a prisoner work for his room & board "cruel & unusual" since the rest of us have to do it daily.

edited to add:

On my early comment about an 18 year old handgun purchase restriction - I meant that as purchase only. Anyone under 18 should be able to own a handgun, if the parent or guardian feels the child can handle the responsibility. If a child can be trusted with a long gun, why restrict them from owning a (usually) less powerful hand gun?

Training and applying for permission to carry and/or follow-up training can be so costly that too many folks are or would be unable to carry. It just cost my wife and I (combined) almost $600 to get our Texas CHL permits! We're retired on a limited budget, that much cash hurts! And there are folks who are in a worse financial position than we are. Permits should be free or not required at all. And follow-up training? Come on! Do you need follow-up training to drive? Can we say "Personal responsibility"? If you're going to participate in any potentially dangerous endeavor, make sure you know what you're doing. As a society, it seems as if we're getting away from being responsible for our own actions and depending more and more on the government to tell us what to do and when to do it.

 

[Scoutsout2645]

No, it will keep that criminal from using a gun about as much as it will keep a drunk convicted of DWI from driving. What it WILL do, is allow enhanced penalties if the felon uses a gun again, allows the police to arrest the felon carrying a gun while en route to commit a crime, and makes it tougher for him to get a gun in the first place--not impossible, just tougher. Short of mind control (which I'm SURE you're not advocating....are you? ) it's all we can do.

 

[TAB]

having worked on a assembly line, I can tell you, it is cruel and unusual.

Doing the same thing hundreds of times a day, drove me crazy. I lasted two weeks.

 

[Scoutsout2645]

There are numerous ways a prison can be made to pay for itself. Farming, assembly line work, light manufacturing (kids toys maybe) are just a few

Mmmm Hmmm...and when these jobs were going to be lost through NAFTA no one complained about that either, right? Everyone's happy about how China's low wages undercut the American worker too, right?

 

[Deleted member 66305]

I consider it a given that criminals will not abide by any gun laws. If you don't trust a felon to vote or carry weapons responsibly and legally after he is released, then don't release him; otherwise, restore full civil rights upon release from prison.

The only restrictions that might make sense is on people who are law-abiding, but have poor impulse control -- poor impulse control + guns is a bad idea. However, practically, this opens up a very slippery slope. Perhaps a "No under 21 unless accompanied by parent or legal guardian" -- with exceptions for extraordinary circumstances.

I support laws that attempt to ensure that those who have or carry firearms are at least minimally proficient with them, and familiar with gun laws in their state.

I don't believe the right to carry, concealed or otherwise, should be restricted from most locations, except in circumstances where one deranged individual with little regard for his own life can endanger many others (e.g., on an airplane). I don't believe one's right to self-defense should end because of alcohol, but I do believe if one is in such a state that you pose a greater danger to innocent bystanders than to your assailant, you have no business carrying, and this should be backed up by law. This goes along with my opinion of limiting the right to carry to those who could be considered law-abiding, but with poor impulse control. I disagree with barring carry in establishments deriving more than half their income from the sale of alcohol. Rather, it should focus on the individual. If I am in a bar, and I have one beer, or none at all (because I am the DD), I should not be denied my right to carry because people around me are drinking.

 

[CliffH]

having worked on a assembly line, I can tell you, it is cruel and unusual.

Just because you didn't like it, it's cruel and/or unusual? There are thousands of non-criminals who do it daily. And who says that prison has to be fun or easy?

...and when these jobs were going to be lost through NAFTA no one complained about that either, right? Everyone's happy about how China's low wages undercut the American worker too, right?

If the prisons are in the US, and the prisoners are making products used in the US or sold to other countries, I see the US profiting from it. The money stays here, or even comes in from the customers outside of the US - instead of us sending our money to another country. And our taxes should be lower, 'cause we're not having to support the prisons/prisoners.

 

[Happiness Is A Warm Gun]

Actually, since restrictions are applied uniformly to all violent felons, it would not constitute unusual punishment. An argument could be made at "cruel punishment" but since that usually refers to psychologically and physically damaging punishment, not revocations of liberty, the SCOTUS probably wouldn't buy it (if it went that far).

By your logic changing the statute to say all crime in any form has a punishment of at least 50 yrs to life would be neither "cruel or unusual"? Hardly. First time robbery 50yrs, first time car theft, 50 yrs. It is never going to fly.

People say lock them up until they are no longer a threat. Such a subjective punishment would never be found constitutional. Could you imagine a judge saying "having been found guilty of robbery, you are hereby sentenced to an unlimited amount of time of incarceration until you are found fit to return to society".

Who makes that determination. Based on what? A criminal in prison knowing he needs to be "good" to go home and not having a financial incentive to commit crime likely will not. Does that mean he is safe? Does that mean he is not going to commit crime? Hardly. Anyone who thinks so if a fool. So how would you determine if a criminal is safe?

The truth is there is no way to know. Even substantial jail time is no guarantee. One person may be "scared straight" after spending a single night in jail. Another will re-offend as soon as he/she gets out no matter how long they were kept in prison.

 

[Maelstrom]

I've long suspected that quite a few of you were off your rockers, but some of you "enlightened" individuals are espousing the idea of nuclear-capable ten-year-olds.

I just don't think I'm willing to agree to that.

Before you laugh at that idea. The Olson twins had enough money to buy nukes by the time they were one. And there are countries that would have sold to them.

In fact, perhaps there's one or two here who want nukes for themselves...

I just never thought I'd lose my life to a rich, pre-pubescent idiot with a temper who wields the power of the sun.

 

[mike101]

Krochus asks:

"Ever been kinda down by being dumped by your wife or girlfriend?"

Sure. Who hasn't? But I never had to go before a judge because of it. I'm talking about people with a serious enough mental disorder, to land them in court, and be ajudicated as mentally ill, and a potential danger to themselves and others, as in 'certifiable'.

Didn't Cho fall into that category?

 

[Soybomb]

The only restrictions that might make sense is on people who are law-abiding, but have poor impulse control -- poor impulse control + guns is a bad idea. However, practically, this opens up a very slippery slope. Perhaps a "No under 21 unless accompanied by parent or legal guardian" -- with exceptions for extraordinary circumstances.

What problem would this fix? Most states allow 18 year olds to buy handguns in private sales. 18 year old buy rifles. Are these young people with legal guns doing bad things at some irregular number? I'm all for trying to fix problems but lets be sure there are actual problems.

I support laws that attempt to ensure that those who have or carry firearms are at least minimally proficient with them, and familiar with gun laws in their state.

As above I have to ask what problems are we fixing supporting this? Most states require no training to own firearms and gun accidents are quite rare. Can it be demonstrated that states with safety or testing requirements like CA have fewer gun accidents than states that dont? The same for concealed carry. Many states don't require training or classes. Can it be demonstrated that these states have problems with concealed carry that don't exist or don't exist in the same numbers in states with mandated testing or training?

Don't support gun control just because you think it sounds like a good idea. It needs to actually do something to even be considered.