How to Keep Guns out of "Bad Guy" Hands?

Status
Not open for further replies.
PJP said:
How is consciously rejecting something not proof of being disincentivised toward it?!
Click to expand...

Because that is not a product of a disincentive imposed by criminal law, like incarceration.

PJP said:
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.
Click to expand...

The process of weighing the risk of incurring a disincentive, a punishment, imposed by criminal law (hanging, beheading, caning, imprisonment or a speeding ticket) is distinguishable from an internalised wisdom that leads one to prefer desirable behaviors.

You may decide that it is prudent to drive no more than 100kph, no matter what the law is or the risk of criminal penalty. I may limit my speed to 100kph only when I suspect the police are watching, because I don't want the ticket. We are clearly distinguishable.

In that scenario, speed limits and penalties for transgression aren't written to disincentivise you; they are aimed at me to get me to re-weigh the relative risks of going faster than the law allows.


Human nature means that some people will always need the prospect of a looming punishment to keep them from speeding, or robbing a bank or killing their mothers-in-law. Where you critique incarceration as an inefficient criminal sanction, it is natural to ask which criminal sanction you consider more efficient.

Wishing that people would be better isn't a criminal sanction.
 
How to keep guns out of bad guys hands? You can't, not unless you want to accept big restrictions on your rights even though you may be a good guy. It's easy to support heavy government actions like stop and frisk when you don't think their outcomes will apply to you. But they will eventually apply to you.
 
SailingOnBy wrote:

I've been following the politics, debates and discussions of guns for a while now and have seen the extreme ends of both sides. IMO with most cases the extreme views are the ones that are holding back good, productive dialogue though.

My question is:

Trying to keep in mind what is reasonable... what does this community feel are the best (or even workable) policies to ensure 2A rights, while keeping guns out of the hands of "bad guys"? Not taking into consideration illegal gun buying/trading. Are the current laws, in your opinion working? Not effective enough? Too weak or too strong?
Click to expand...


You'll never find an answer to your question because your thinking that gun control will control "bad guys" !!!

Gun control doesn't work on "bad guys"
Bad guy control is the answer to "bad guys".

Your barking up the wrong tree.
 
Because that is not a product of a disincentive imposed by criminal law, like incarceration.
Click to expand...

Who says disincentives are limited to criminal law?
The dictionary didn't.
In fact, the only specific punishment referenced where the use was typically (but not exclusively) applied was of a financial nature.
Synonyms include discourage, restrain, deter, inhibit....

If you have chosen to view that word through strict parameters, then I guess that is your choice, but I am not obliged to.

Human nature means that some people will always need the prospect of a looming punishment to keep them from speeding, or robbing a bank or killing their mothers-in-law. Where you critique incarceration as an inefficient criminal sanction, it is natural to ask which criminal sanction you consider more efficient.
Click to expand...

I've never said that I want to ban imprisonment outright. I've never said that we should abolish it tomorrow. In fact I've already explained that some people need to be there. Why do you seek to limit it to one sanction? Since when is that an effective approach?

Yet it is the only real option we have right now and "one-size fits all" is not great, is it? It's like only having amoxicillin whether you have pneumonia, depression or a broken leg. Great for pneumonia, but not the others.
The approach I've suggested is essential completely over-looked.

And as I've said: look at the numbers.

Your question seems geared to get me to say that imprisonment is great and the only answer and is framed as a catch-all statement. As you clearly know that the world is quite varied in its inhabitants...

Perhaps you should tell me if you see the current situation as a sign of something that works well...

Perhaps you should also account for societies that have neither US levels of incarceration nor US levels of crime, if imprisonment is the only viable disincentive.

And finally, perhaps you can explain why you dismiss my suggestion. You have not explored it one jot. You've only pursued my view that imprisonment is inefficient.

I look back where this thread has gone and TBH, I've explained (and IMO, justified) my position repeatedly. It is relevant to the OP.
Now, if it is not clear by now or if you don't agree with it as a means of reducing crime, or you just don't like it, that is fine.

Frankly, I think all those who think the current system is great and actually needs to be even more severe, can rest assured:
Right now the prison system is all there is and I think my ideas are a political pipe-dream and I see prisons continuing to be used and achieving the same fabulous results we've been enjoying so far.

What I don't see is how going over all of this again and again is adding any new dimensions or clarity.
 
Last edited:
You'll never find an answer to your question because your thinking that gun control will control "bad guys" !!!

Gun control doesn't work on "bad guys"
Bad guy control is the answer to "bad guys".

Your barking up the wrong tree.
Click to expand...

So, what is your solution? If you could draft and pass federal and/or state legislation (including revoking current laws?) right now on this subject, what would it be?
 
Last edited:
A good friend of mine, a past student, is a prison Officer in Ontario, Canada.

She explained to me, years ago, that there are prisoner's in the prison system, who are kept permanently drugged, and segregated.

What is the solution there?
 
SailingOnBy asked again:

So, what is your solution? If you could draft and pass federal and/or state legislation (including revoking current laws?) right now on this subject, what would it be?
Click to expand...

You'll never find an answer to your question because your thinking that gun control.

Again - Gun control doesn't work on "bad guys"

,,,
 
Returning to a question I had to leave unanswered yesterday, . . . I could not have answered it more eloquently than zukiphile already did. Accordingly, I'll simply quote him and hope for his indulgence.

zukiphile said:
SailingOnBy said:
Which constitutional rights have you already surrendered?
Click to expand...
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?"
Click to expand...
 
I feel that the BEST way to accomplish saving our rights and reducing gun violence is 3 pronged

#1+2 clean the streets of career thugs and their money and illegal guns. The Israelis have a way of doing this. The imprison the terrorists, take their stuff and destroy their homes to show others what happens if you mess with legit citizens--in other words, a thug has NO rights at all. They get punished for being a thug--it might discourage some thugs--might not

then we need to increase security and inspections of imports into t his country--over 85% of all gun crimes are committed with black market guns smuggled into our country. Focus on intercepting those black market smuggled guns and watch the result

#3 better mental health care and much better screening and reporting of same--change the laws to allow a physician to report a potentially violent psych patient---and provide proof of their claims of course

it is not a perfect plan but it would do some good. After all 99% of us who legally own guns do nothing wring YET we are to ones who our "leaders": target not the thugs-- how bizarre. I guess the law enforcement industry lobby is stronger than ours. Otherwise going after thugs would be priority #1

JMHO
 
over 85% of all gun crimes are committed with black market guns smuggled into our country. Focus on intercepting those black market smuggled guns and watch the result
Click to expand...

Can I ask where you got that information?

I can imagine it is true in Europe, but in the world's largest and least regulated (excluding the likes of Mogadishu's weapon's market) domestic firearms market?
It's a little surprising.
Where are they smuggling them from?

You'll never find an answer to your question because your thinking that gun control.

Again - Gun control doesn't work on "bad guys"
Click to expand...

Right or wrong tree, the fact is the anti-gun lobby are thinking in those terms and I personally think it wise to do the same and, in doing so, find alternatives to theirs.

Otherwise you're forever singing to their tune and jumping to their beat.
 
Last edited:
An anti gun person offers a compromise:

He demands that he sleep with your wife five times a week. When you protest he complains that you need to be reasonable. Then he offers a "reasonable" and "common sense" compromise. He will only sleep with your wife twice a week. You are relieved that the demand is reduced.

That is how the sphere of freedom is diminished by the controllers.
 
I feel that the BEST way to accomplish saving our rights and reducing gun violence is 3 pronged

#1+2 clean the streets of career thugs and their money and illegal guns. The Israelis have a way of doing this. The imprison the terrorists, take their stuff and destroy their homes to show others what happens if you mess with legit citizens--in other words, a thug has NO rights at all. They get punished for being a thug--it might discourage some thugs--might not
Click to expand...

The issue I have with this is best framed around a slippery slope argument. It is likely that many of us, through some course of action or another, are not 100% in compliance with the law often on a daily basis. What exactly constitutes being a thug? Making internet purchases that evade the payment of sales tax on an item while failing to declare that on your state income tax? Driving over the speed limit? Mailing a piece of mail without adequate postage?

When you give the government excessive authority to use punitive means against individuals you are giving them the right to use those means against more than just the individuals you intended and possible yourself in the future.
 
Thanks, Spats. We write on these issues here hedonically, so the best we can do is explain and explore without irritating anyone. I may not have met that goal.

PJP said:
Who says disincentives are limited to criminal law?
The dictionary didn't.
In fact, the only specific punishment referenced where the use was typically (but not exclusively) applied was of a financial nature.
Synonyms include discourage, restrain, deter, inhibit....

If you have chosen to view that word through strict parameters, then I guess that is your choice, but I am not obliged to.
Click to expand...

I have addressed you within the context of this thread. Where we are discussing the law surrounding a civil right and criminal transgression of the law, the disincentives involved will be criminal penalties.

PJP said:
I've never said that I want to ban imprisonment outright. I've never said that we should abolish it tomorrow. In fact I've already explained that some people need to be there. Why do you seek to limit it to one sanction?
Click to expand...

I have neither accused you of seeking an immediate or complete ban of incarceration, nor sought to limit criminal disincentives to a single sanction.

I have posed questions to you based on some of your comments.

PJP said:
The approach I've suggested is essential completely over-looked.
Click to expand...

Where your suggestion is more state spending on education, I can assure that the option hasn't been overlooked. In fact, it has been tried for decades.

PJP said:
And finally, perhaps you can explain why you dismiss my suggestion. You have not explored it one jot. You've only pursued my view that imprisonment is inefficient.
Click to expand...

That is incorrect. At post 59 I note the differences in population vis a vis scandinavia, your offered standard, and in post 76 some of the constraints on both criiminal law and educational reform in the US.

Far from dismissing what you've written, I have sought to afford you the courtesy of scrutiny. I believe this was ATN's goal as well.

Someone who asks you what you think isn't dismissing your offered idea.

PJP said:
Your question seems geared to get me to say that imprisonment is great and the only answer and is framed as a catch-all statement.
***
What I don't see is how going over all of this again and again is adding any new dimensions or clarity.
Click to expand...

Contrary to your stated suspicion, my questions are geared to prompt you away from simple repetition and to get your responses to specific questions about how to approach criminal penalties.

Some may see a clarity in a disinclination to answer a question directly, but you've certainly no obligation to solve the world's problems and I imagine few of us are ready to set forth a comprehensive penal strategy. As noted above, we all do this for fun.
 
Last edited:
Lohman446 said:
The thing about that story is that the gun purchase was legal. The retailer did nothing wrong. Even if he sensed "something" was wrong a retailer who refuses to sell a gun to someone because of a feeling is eventually going to run afoul of discrimination lawsuits.
Click to expand...

Is this true?

I was under the impression that an FFL can refuse a sale for just about any reason and in fact must refuse a sale if they have a reasonable suspicion (A feeling) that the buyer is prohibited or dangerous.

Has there ever been a discrimination suit filed against an FFL due to a refusal based on his/her feelings?

Lohman446 said:
By the way Sally's parents actually taught her about guns. She is capable enough to use one to defend herself but has simply not purchased one before now. For the sake of the story let's assume its a .38 special revolver like her grandpa taught her to use. Sally is told to come back in seven days after the required waiting period.
Click to expand...

A solution to this scenario is rather simple in my mind.

Remove the seven day waiting period. Sally would then be afforded the tools she desired to protect herself when she felt she needed them and not after she was attacked.
 
Is this true?

I was under the impression that an FFL can refuse a sale for just about any reason and in fact must refuse a sale if they have a reasonable suspicion (A feeling) that the buyer is prohibited or dangerous.

Has there ever been a discrimination suit filed against an FFL due to a refusal based on his/her feelings?
Click to expand...

I would think, even in a private business, you better have a defensible reason that does not involve any of the protected classes (race, religion, sex, etc.) If the member you decline from purchasing based on a "feeling" is a member of one of those protected classes you may find yourself at the center of a media storm at best.
 
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...r-refusing-gun-sale-to-would-be-mass-shooter/

The owner of Downs Bait and Guns is being praised for refusing a gun sale to a suspected mass shooter who passed an FBI background check for his firearm.

The alleged would-be mass shooter–James Howard–passed a background check on March 21, but the store owner suspected Howard had plans to “hurt himself or others,” so he refused to hand the gun to Howard. According to WGN News, store owner John Downs told Howard, “You know what, bud, I have a really bad feeling about this. I just can’t sell you the gun.” Howard is alleged to have left the store outraged, only to return a short time later.

When he returned, Downs loaded guns to use for self-defense, “told customers to hide,” and dialed 911. “Howard was later arrested at a nearby Walmart.”

So, "you would think" that Down Bait and Guns is now subject to civil discrimination law suits?

Link.
https://www.quora.com/In-the-US-if-...n-are-they-legally-allowed-to-refuse-the-sale
 
steve said:
I was under the impression that an FFL can refuse a sale for just about any reason and in fact must refuse a sale if they have a reasonable suspicion (A feeling) that the buyer is prohibited or dangerous.
Click to expand...

I have heard licensees assert that as well. I took a quick look for discrimination cases against FFLs, and the same case kept popping up. The order dismissing the Complaint is linked below.

I found the order interesting in that it references no exemption from anti-discrimination laws for licensees. One would think that such a broad immunity would be argued by the defendant.

http://www.americanfreedomlawcenter.../2015/09/Order-Granting-Motion-to-Dismiss.pdf
 
http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...-mass-shooter/

The owner of Downs Bait and Guns is being praised for refusing a gun sale to a suspected mass shooter who passed an FBI background check for his firearm.

The alleged would-be mass shooter–James Howard–passed a background check on March 21, but the store owner suspected Howard had plans to “hurt himself or others,” so he refused to hand the gun to Howard. According to WGN News, store owner John Downs told Howard, “You know what, bud, I have a really bad feeling about this. I just can’t sell you the gun.” Howard is alleged to have left the store outraged, only to return a short time later.

When he returned, Downs loaded guns to use for self-defense, “told customers to hide,” and dialed 911. “Howard was later arrested at a nearby Walmart.”

So, "you would think" that Down Bait and Guns is now subject to civil discrimination law suits?
Click to expand...

No because there actions are, based on the actions of the person they defended against, defensible. They have a reason and that reason was validated.

I get the idea. Don't sell a gun to someone you have a bad feeling about. Great concept. But what about when that person argues you had a bed feeling not because of the actions of that individual but because that person was part of a protected class?

That legal conclusion is, as noted, interesting but it basically argued that no damage was done so there were no grounds for redress.
 
How to Keep Guns out of "Bad Guy" Hands? It's simple - get a time machine, go back to 1787, and convince the drafters of the constitution to rewrite the second amendment to say "The people shall have no right to keep and bear arms".

Barring that, I'm afraid you are too late. Now 229 years later there are over 300,000,000 guns in circulation. There have and always will be Bad Guys, and Bad Guys have and will always find guns.

Some things are just out of our control, and all we can do is defend ourselves against them.

TomNJVA
 
Lohman446 said:
No because there actions are, based on the actions of the person they defended against, defensible. They have a reason and that reason was validated.

I get the idea. Don't sell a gun to someone you have a bad feeling about. Great concept. But what about when that person argues you had a bed feeling not because of the actions of that individual but because that person was part of a protected class?

That legal conclusion is, as noted, interesting but it basically argued that no damage was done so there were no grounds for redress.
Click to expand...

Do you have any cases to back up your opinion?

The one posted above seems clear to me.

...and this from ATF form 4473, Questions 21,22,23.

https://www.atf.gov/file/61446/download
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top