There is no question that keeping "serious" criminals incarcerated reduces their ability to inflict damage on the general population. They are then held with less serious criminals who may be there because they were drunk, stoned, desperate or just stupid. Now we have a breeding ground for creating more "serious" criminals. Because of the overwhelming numbers there is little chance of rehabilitation and recidivism is almost certain. The numbers continue to grow at a staggering rate. What we are doing is not working. Doing more of it accomplishes nothing.
How to Keep Guns out of "Bad Guy" Hands?
- Thread starter SailingOnBy
- Start date
- Status
Zukophile, there needs to be a parent present to give those orders. From my understanding, lack of a structured/stable home life is a contributing factor to kids joining gangs.
If dad is locked up and mom is working out of the house, no one is setting the rules. This also contributes to a lessened sense of a vested interest in society/ the neighborhood.
If dad is locked up and mom is working out of the house, no one is setting the rules. This also contributes to a lessened sense of a vested interest in society/ the neighborhood.
kilimanjaro
New member
With 2 percent of the US population in jail, it's obvious that incarceration at current levels does not work. It should be a minimum of 5 percent.
Put the criminals in jail and then tell us whether it works or not. We are not using the justice system effectively, and haven't for decades.
Cry me a river about your taxes, that $300 a year we pay for courts and police can't hold a candle to the damage one feral thug can do inside your home one night, or by selling drugs on the corner, or embezzling the funds at your business.
We say 'enforce the existing gun laws' and that's all we need to do, but then turn around and refuse to do so with other criminals. That is the kind of two-faced approach that loses credibility in a hurry. Half of us can't even be bothered to serve on a jury, the lowest level of citizen involvement in controlling crime.
Put the criminals in jail and then tell us whether it works or not. We are not using the justice system effectively, and haven't for decades.
Cry me a river about your taxes, that $300 a year we pay for courts and police can't hold a candle to the damage one feral thug can do inside your home one night, or by selling drugs on the corner, or embezzling the funds at your business.
We say 'enforce the existing gun laws' and that's all we need to do, but then turn around and refuse to do so with other criminals. That is the kind of two-faced approach that loses credibility in a hurry. Half of us can't even be bothered to serve on a jury, the lowest level of citizen involvement in controlling crime.
Why stop at 5% Kilimanjaro? Why not 10 or 20? What if we spent a few of those billions and addressed some of the underlying issues instead? I am perfectly happy to do my duty as a citizen of a free nation, including paying the necessary taxes and serving as needed. I don't want to live in a police state though. Locking up huge numbers of citizens to maintain order is a historically dangerous way of doing business.
Pond James Pond
New member
I totally agree that parents have a heavy role to play but is that an area where the government is to start working its magic too? This discussion focusses on what can be done to stop guns getting into the hands of criminals.
To that end, there are things government can do to reduce crime, but going into the home and telling parents how to bring up kids is probably not one of them, even though there are cases where, frankly, the input is sorely needed.
So, yes, good manners and decency can help clinch that job that will give a young person the sense of pride that allows them to say no to a life of crime. Yet so do the high school graduation papers, vocational diploma certificates, university degrees that employers look for.
For me this all boils down to what I see as the necessary steps forward, the fact those steps are ostensibly not being taken and that (were I an American) my firearms would be the sacrificial lamb being used as a means of covering the lack of action up....
SailingOnBy
New member
First, could someone show me the trick on these forums to quoting a post directly, without having to copy/paste and add in quote/user quoted code? It is conspicuously absent as far as I can see.
As an attorney I'm sure you're familiar with what one might call productive dialogue, and the sort of dialogue that gets nobody anywhere.
Watch Dana Loesch(sp?) debate someone on gun control sometime. Here's how it goes:
Other Guy - tries to talk and bring up a topic or point of debate
DL - A&^@$SDF@#&ASDGF
Other Guy - Gets dragged into the shouting/arguing eventually
DL - *)HFGJ()%)GN{}>?HJK:#$%
This isn't out of the norm at all when people try to debate gun laws/control/all that. People can't even have a civil, two way dialogue about it. That's why I'm asking the question here, where most people here seem to be able to do so.
As for the "extreme" views? I suppose I'd have to call those:
1) Citizens don't need to be armed at all, that's why we have police/army.
2) There should be no gun laws of any kind what so ever.
Not trying to load my question at all, I'm not trying to change anyone's mind here at all. Simply trying to have a discussion. Obviously part of the issue here is that it's hard to even find the right questions in some cases.
A mandatory gun buyback with a felony penalty for failure to do so is obviously not reasonable in keeping with the 2nd Amendment and I would argue that you yourself now are asking a loaded question.
I'm a little unsure here, but you're saying that you're just going to be unreasonable about this now? Acting unreasonably "because the other guy is" is to be part of the problem, and not part of the solution in pretty much any situation imaginable. I'm certainly not suggesting anyone lay down and surrender their 2A rights but if your profile is correct, you live in a shall-issue state and from what I can tell, possibly even a constitutional carry state? Which constitutional rights have you already surrendered?
1) Without drawing any inferences here, I mean any other industrial nation where they provide a solid education for their citizens. The US education system is crumbling into ruins.
2) Because... it's one of the core foundations of our society? However I completely agree that a total overhaul of the education system is very badly needed. And not just pumping more money into what we already have, but a modernized, thinking-out-of-the-box type system.
This is what our federal/local governments should be looking at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vsCAM17O-M
Exactly. These "Tough on Crime" and the War on Drug laws have spiraled our criminal justice system into such a catastrophe that we're going to spend a VERY long time recovering from it. Taking the same philosophy and applying it to non-serious (need to add this qualifier) gun crimes is madness. It's time we learn from our mistakes and stop just making more of them out of habit. Lock 'em up and throw away the key is a poor man's solution.
Spats McGee said:
As an attorney I'm sure you're familiar with what one might call productive dialogue, and the sort of dialogue that gets nobody anywhere.
Watch Dana Loesch(sp?) debate someone on gun control sometime. Here's how it goes:
Other Guy - tries to talk and bring up a topic or point of debate
DL - A&^@$SDF@#&ASDGF
Other Guy - Gets dragged into the shouting/arguing eventually
DL - *)HFGJ()%)GN{}>?HJK:#$%
This isn't out of the norm at all when people try to debate gun laws/control/all that. People can't even have a civil, two way dialogue about it. That's why I'm asking the question here, where most people here seem to be able to do so.
As for the "extreme" views? I suppose I'd have to call those:
1) Citizens don't need to be armed at all, that's why we have police/army.
2) There should be no gun laws of any kind what so ever.
Spats McGee said:
Not trying to load my question at all, I'm not trying to change anyone's mind here at all. Simply trying to have a discussion. Obviously part of the issue here is that it's hard to even find the right questions in some cases.
A mandatory gun buyback with a felony penalty for failure to do so is obviously not reasonable in keeping with the 2nd Amendment and I would argue that you yourself now are asking a loaded question.
Spats McGee said:
I'm a little unsure here, but you're saying that you're just going to be unreasonable about this now? Acting unreasonably "because the other guy is" is to be part of the problem, and not part of the solution in pretty much any situation imaginable. I'm certainly not suggesting anyone lay down and surrender their 2A rights but if your profile is correct, you live in a shall-issue state and from what I can tell, possibly even a constitutional carry state? Which constitutional rights have you already surrendered?
Spats McGee said:
1) Without drawing any inferences here, I mean any other industrial nation where they provide a solid education for their citizens. The US education system is crumbling into ruins.
2) Because... it's one of the core foundations of our society? However I completely agree that a total overhaul of the education system is very badly needed. And not just pumping more money into what we already have, but a modernized, thinking-out-of-the-box type system.
This is what our federal/local governments should be looking at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vsCAM17O-M
Exactly. These "Tough on Crime" and the War on Drug laws have spiraled our criminal justice system into such a catastrophe that we're going to spend a VERY long time recovering from it. Taking the same philosophy and applying it to non-serious (need to add this qualifier) gun crimes is madness. It's time we learn from our mistakes and stop just making more of them out of habit. Lock 'em up and throw away the key is a poor man's solution.
Spats McGee
Administrator
There's no trick. Nor is there a quote button. Copy & paste is all we have, and that's on purpose.
I'm familiar with the term. My question is of a different nature. Exactly what kind of dialogue do you think we (gun owners) should engage in with the antigun people? Do you think we should be discussing more gun control laws?SailingOnBy said:
If you think there's a "dialogue that gets nobody anywhere," my question is, "where do you think we should be going?"
But part of the issue that I am trying to bring to your attention is that putting "reasonableness" into the equation makes the right subject to a popular vote. And there is a significant part of the population that seems to believe that gun buybacks, registration, or even outright confiscation, are perfectly valid and reasonable restrictions on the 2A right.SailingOnBy said:
The Bill of Rights is one of the most undemocratic documents in world history. Why? Because it puts certain rights beyond the reach of the popular vote. The one excercising the right doesn't necessarily have to be "reasonable" in its exercise. As an example, in respect to my 1A right, I could write in SpongeBob Squarepants as a presidential candidate and nobody can say boo about it. Would that be reasonable? No. SS is a fictional, animated character. But I have a constitutionally enumerated Right to do it.
My rights aren't up for grabs.
I'm not being unreasonable at all. I simply have a clear position: I'm not willing to give up any of my constitutionally-enumerated rights and see no point in pretending otherwise.SailingOnBy said:
When you say that "[a]cting unreasonably 'because the other guy is' is part of the problem," . . . . exactly what "problem" are you talking about?
I have to clean up and go to work, but I didn't miss this question. I'll come back for it.SailingOnBy said:
Maybe I wasn't clear in my question, so I'll rephrase: "To which countries do you refer, precisely?"SailingOnBy said:
Pond James Pond
New member
If you want to challenge what I said, start by paraphrasing it accurately.
I said that when a drug-dealer is locked up, someone is ready to take his place.
That is a phenomenon borne out time and time again in areas with illegal drugs problems.
If that weren't the case, those drug problems would disappear from an area once a dealer was apprehended.
So, forgive me, but trying to counter a point based on something that actually happens on the street with a hypothetical scenario that could never happen just isn't going to work.
Or put another way: Are you seriously suggesting locking up all criminals as a viable solution?
Last edited:
The sphere of freedom pertaining to arms has constricted over the prior century.
Prior to the NFA, one could mail order or buy from a store what ever the small arms market had to offer. Following the NFA, one needed a tolerance for paper work and money for the government stamp.
Prior to the GCA, one could buy a firearm at the hardware or department store the same way he could buy a chainsaw or a snow blower. After the the GCA that market was federalised and regulated so that a buyer could only purchase a new arm from a federal licensee.
For a decade, there were a number of products available in the rifle market that could no longer be purchased new under the AWB.
Those are the big ones, but there are a number of other state imposed restrictions like waiting periods, ammunition restrictions, state lists of approved arms and effective prohibitions (DC) and legal prohibitions (Morton Grove).
Each of these was a step in the political drive toward restriction. Except for DC and Morton Grove, each time that political process was set forth as a compromise position, a solution that would preserve a vestige of the prior freedom of behavior.
By their nature, these political compromises aren't solutions, but reflect the state of politics in the moment of their creation. Each step gets us a bit more used the idea that each new silly regulation is something to which we must adjust, and confirms a habit of adjustment to silly restrictions. In that sort of regulatory stew, people ask questions like "Why do you need X?" "Who should be allowed to have X?" as if they weren't absurd questions to pose about a constitutional right.
The sphere of freedom can become so constricted that a constitutional right can be very heavily regulated and the market quite limited so that the right itself comes to be seen as describing such a small amount of freedom that a person could know all of the above and still ask, "Which constitutional rights have you already surrendered?"
Pond said:
I apologize if I misunderstood what you were saying. I made a previous post with:
ATN082268 said:
And then you said:
Pond said:
I can't speak for anyone else but the implication I got from your above response is that if you put all the criminals in prison, they will just be replaced with new ranks of criminals, so the crime rate will essentially stay the same. If you added comments to that post along the lines that some of the criminal ranks would be replaced, then that would have drastically changed the meaning for me. Personally I have never stated that society could get rid of *all* crime.
Assuming there is adequate enforcement, I do think that stiff prison sentences for serious offenses will deter the vast majority of people from committing those crimes and will keep undeterred people from inflicting their criminal behavior on the rest of the population. And as for locking up all the criminals, that depends on the definition of criminal
PJP said:
Criminal penalties would fall into one of four categories that I can think of as I type this:
1. Imprisonment.
2. Fine or forfeiture.
3. Infliction of discomfort.
4. Death.
Death isn't economic in the american legal system, and many people (me included) have moral qualms about the practice.
Fine or forfeiture...As anyone who has been given a false speeding ticket knows, once a government has been shown an opportunity for revenue, it may be less than fastidious in observing the rules as it collects that revenue.
Infliction of discomfort. Lots of the world does this still. A whipping or a caning is cheaper than housing and feeding someone over time, though mere pain may be less a disincentive to one accustomed to beatings. Whatever its merits, it has little prospect of renewed popularity in the US.
Prison has problems including, but not limited to expense, prison conditions and control of the population in prison.
If you find none of those methods acceptable, is your opposition to the idea of criminal penalties per se?
Pond James Pond
New member
This is best addressed with a full recap....
The question was "How to keep guns out of the hands of bad guys". I have taken this to mean "How to reduce gun crime". I reject that notion as lazy politics and propose instead trying to reduce crime as a whole.
I have explained that, IMO, achieving that aim is better done through education rather than incarceration, given the choice. I have explained why and given numbers to further support my reasoning.
The question was never how is it best to punish people. Nor can I help it if punishment is the only viable means that others can fathom or are willing to contemplate for tackling social ills.
However, in answer to your question which has taken us back to the issue punishments: for me the issue of crime is about improving society in an effective manner.
Some criminals (violent) are best removed from society and there incarceration is all we've got, but I doubt they're the majority. In the other cases criminals have caused society harm rather than people. Prison population numbers show they've not been very deterred and recidivism rates suggest they're not being rehabilitated.
There are other alternatives designed to readjust people, get them to realise their actions have consequences, make them see their community as something they're part of and not a resource to be plundered, finally giving them some sense of ownership in it so that they might work to improve it, not milk it.
Imagine half the prions population coming out to pay taxes not later use them after re-offending. Better for them, better for us.
So for that part of the criminal element, yes, I'm not greatly in favour of such penalties as they do little to address the underlying problem. All it does well is tick the "retribution" box.
And, meanwhile, I believe the lack of improvement in the situation will continue to fan the sails of the anti-gun movement.
Last edited:
PJP said:
I concur. "Crime" is (or should be) the operative term in "gun crime".
PJP said:
I believe you did raise that issue. Some of your stated opposition to incarceration is that it is a poor disincentive:
PJP said:
If incarceration is not an efficient deterrent, which disincentive is more efficient?
EDIT - Let me acknowledge that you supplemented your response after I opened this window, and that on the prior page you made a partial response to that last question.
It would be nice if imprisonment involved an effective therapy for turning even violent felons into productive members of society. That discussion can involve carrots and sticks, but not all sticks will be available within the american political and legal context.
Similarly we have some political limits to reform of the state educational apparatus.
Last edited:
Pond James Pond
New member
As I've explained, IMO, educating and empowering people before they reach the stage of choosing a life of criminal behaviour so that they are less inclined to choose it.
I'd rather see crime rejected from the outset, instead of having people try to turn their backs on it once it's already pulled them in.
Part of this discussion also has to hinge on exactly who is "the bad guy". I argued early on that the diagnosed and non-medicated schizophrenic should not have access to a firearm. I believe that statement holds validity.
However it was pointed out as to who I am willing to accept that diagnosis from? Does a single psychiatrist have that authority. To further that question what about the individual with treated ADHD? What if the individual states "I am following the will of God" and is diagnosed as schizophrenic? While disallowing certain individuals with mental illness to own firearms seems incredibly reasonable on the face of it the implementation of doing so runs the risk of trampling individual rights.
Further who exactly is a criminal? Many of us have plead guilty to certain civil infractions such as speeding. Some of us have probably failed to renew our car plates on time. At what does the person who fails to follow every single law (which may be impossible for most of us anyways) every moment be deemed unfit to own a firearm?
I am convinced that there are people who should not be permitted to own firearms. While I can point to certain circumstances at the extremes I do have a hard time defining the line exactly.
However it was pointed out as to who I am willing to accept that diagnosis from? Does a single psychiatrist have that authority. To further that question what about the individual with treated ADHD? What if the individual states "I am following the will of God" and is diagnosed as schizophrenic? While disallowing certain individuals with mental illness to own firearms seems incredibly reasonable on the face of it the implementation of doing so runs the risk of trampling individual rights.
Further who exactly is a criminal? Many of us have plead guilty to certain civil infractions such as speeding. Some of us have probably failed to renew our car plates on time. At what does the person who fails to follow every single law (which may be impossible for most of us anyways) every moment be deemed unfit to own a firearm?
I am convinced that there are people who should not be permitted to own firearms. While I can point to certain circumstances at the extremes I do have a hard time defining the line exactly.
PJP said:
What you've explained isn't responsive to the question.
Q: Which disincentive [to criminal behavior] is more efficient [than incarceration]?
A: I'd rather see crime rejected from the outset...
I prefer that people reject crime too. Our preference isn't a disincentive to others. That's why I re-framed the question.
If your objection to incarceration is that it isn't an efficient disincentive, but you don't see any of the other disincentives as more efficient, your objection isn't with the inefficiency of incarceration as a disincentive, but with the idea of disincentives for criminal behavior.
Pond James Pond
New member
How is consciously rejecting something not proof of being disincentivised toward it?!
If choosing not to do something because of unpleasant consequences is being disincentivised, then so is choosing not to do it because you perceive it as unwise or undesirable.
If choosing not to do something because of unpleasant consequences is being disincentivised, then so is choosing not to do it because you perceive it as unwise or undesirable.
- Status