A Sane Discussion About Gun Violence

[Adrift]

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?

The belief is that they would eventually be taken out of circulation, if not completely, significantly so. Also, as someone pointed out in one of the other threads, most gun crime is committed with legally acquired guns. But I'm merely repeating points already mentioned in those previous threads.

[Cow Poke]

I had considered that, but you would need to strictly define "negligent".

Agreed.

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?

I think the legal phrase "reasonable person" comes into play here. It would be interesting to see how this is defined, should it ever happen. I'm inclined to think, in this day and age, that prudence would require us to be a bit more careful than we were "in the good old days". They're long gone.

[carpedm9587]

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

So I'm curious, do you really think the discussion held here, so far, is about "banning guns?" If so, I'd ask you to point out which posts advocated for banning guns. If not, then I'd advocate for you accepting that some of us want to solve the problem of gun violence WITHOUT tramping on legal, good citizen's rights to own and bear arms.

[Cow Poke]

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

Compassionate conservative.

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.

We can't even make men take responsibility for their own families, let alone, others.

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.

"Some slack"? In the case of a stolen car, if the owner reported it stolen prior to it being used in the commission of a crime, he's blameless. (Unless, of course, there's some fraud, which happens)

[Cow Poke]

So I'm curious, do you really think the discussion held here, so far, is about "banning guns?" If so, I'd ask you to point out which posts advocated for banning guns. If not, then I'd advocate for you accepting that some of us want to solve the problem of gun violence WITHOUT tramping on legal, good citizen's rights to own and bear arms.

So, let's go there. Do you, personally, support a gun ban in any form?

[carpedm9587]

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.

First - I asked that the discussion in this thread be respectful. Calling anyone's idea "stupid" most definitely crosses the line. If you cannot treat the discussion in respectful terms, I'm going to ask that you not post here. I'm not interested in seeing this thread degrade into a flame war. I'm interested in reasonable people having a reasonable discussion about the issues. You can disagree - but please do so respectfully.

Second - the point I was making was that I think we need a mechanism for ensuring that law-abiding people ar enot being careless with how they store and control their firearms. One way the gunas get into the wrong hands is through theft and indiscriminate distribution. If the owner of record knew that anything ill done with the weapon would impact them as well as the user, they might take more care in securing and controlling their firearms. Clearly, this should only apply to owners who have demonstrated clear negligence in securing weapons.

[carpedm9587]

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!!!

Demi - please respect the people having this discussion, or take your posts elsewhere.

[carpedm9587]

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....

That was essentially my point. You worded it better.

[Cow Poke]

That was essentially my point. You worded it better.

I'm like that.

[Sparko]

The belief is that they would eventually be taken out of circulation, if not completely, significantly so. Also, as someone pointed out in one of the other threads, most gun crime is committed with legally acquired guns. But I'm merely repeating points already mentioned in those previous threads.

First that would take a ban on ALL guns, maybe on gun manufacturing. And it would take a LONG time, because there are a lot of guns out there. And other countries make guns and have them too. You would basically just be increasing the cost of illegal guns, and making them a precious commodity for gun runners and smugglers. Like trying to ban narcotics.

It just isn't reasonable. It is a lot more reasonable to maximize the punishment for those who misuse guns to the point that the criminals might think twice about using a gun during a burglary or other crime. I understand most criminals don't expect to get caught, but enough of them have been caught and have records of multiple arrests and stops that they would be pretty leary about getting caught and having to spend say 15 years in jail for just having a gun during a crime.

[carpedm9587]

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.

Unfortunately, unless the term is "life," there seems to be statistical evidence that incarceration increases the likelihood of re-offence, and longer incarceraton exacerbates that. So they are not causing more deaths while incarcerated, but more likely to do so when eventually released. It's a thorny problem...

[Cow Poke]

First - I asked that the discussion in this thread be respectful. Calling anyone's idea "stupid" most definitely crosses the line. If you cannot treat the discussion in respectful terms, I'm going to ask that you not post here. I'm not interested in seeing this thread degrade into a flame war. I'm interested in reasonable people having a reasonable discussion about the issues. You can disagree - but please do so respectfully.

Second - the point I was making was that I think we need a mechanism for ensuring that law-abiding people ar enot being careless with how they store and control their firearms. One way the gunas get into the wrong hands is through theft and indiscriminate distribution. If the owner of record knew that anything ill done with the weapon would impact them as well as the user, they might take more care in securing and controlling their firearms. Clearly, this should only apply to owners who have demonstrated clear negligence in securing weapons.

This would, of course, require a massive gun ownership database. I think this is a major area of mistrust - both from a practical stance (even credit companies can't keep their records secure) and what you might call a conspiratorial stance (easier for the government to round up guns).

None of my firearms are "registered" in a database.

[carpedm9587]

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?

I have to admit this argument always perplexes me. It seems to suggest "because criminals can get arms illegally, we should not bother doing anything to stop them getting them legally." Are you really trying to make tat argument, or am I misunderstanding you?

[Cow Poke]

Unfortunately, unless the term is "life," there seems to be statistical evidence that incarceration increases the likelihood of re-offence, and longer incarceraton exacerbates that. So they are not causing more deaths while incarcerated, but more likely to do so when eventually released. It's a thorny problem...

it is.

[carpedm9587]

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

Ouch...

But I have to wonder if extreme penalties for use of a gun in the commission of a crime wouldn't change the dynamic...

And then I think of the extreme view in some Muslim countries around theft... and I just cannot get myself to go there...