People keep talking about "solutions" to gun violence.
There is only one solution - and that is a fantasy - elimination of all guns.
So forget the idea of a solution.
Rather there are steps that can be taken to reduce the incidence of gun violence.
Even those steps may have unintended consequences.
For example, I hope that we can agree that mentally ill persons should not have easy access to firearms - the downside of that step is that mentally ill persons are prevented from protecting themselves with a firearm. So weight the pros and cons of that step. Then decide what is in the common good.
@ Need2no, community where the mayor made it mandatory for every household to have a gun.... are you referring to Nelson GA, Kennesaw GA, Nucla Co, or some other place?
So here's an update, Kennesaw: Rambo-styled individual bursts into the Fed-Ex facility there killing six. (18 months ago)
Nelson Ga: town ordinance adopted that affirms right of citizens NOT to have firearms.
Nucla Co: town of 600 has not had any gun violence before or after making it mandatory that every household have a gun.
What is also interesting is that in none of the towns is there any enforcement of the "mandatory" gun ownership.
So what town are you talking about?
October 15, 2015 at 12:40 p.m.
You are conflating two very different ideas; and I am certainly not apologizing for murderers.
You think that the threat of a life sentence (or lethal injection, or quartering) is going to act as a deterrent.
What I am saying is deterrence does not work with people in a fit of passion, rage, etc. BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT THINKING!
I am also saying that persons who are suicidal, DO NOT CARE about your life sentence or lethal injection.
I am also saying that persons who desire to be martyrs, DO NOT CARE about your life sentence or lethal injection.
Fortunately we have experienced very few of the "I want to be a martyr" - with the possible exception of Dylann Roof.
I suspect that the majority of today's murders fall into the "passion" category, for them the deterrent factor that you espouse is meaningless - because they no longer are thinking rationally.
October 14, 2015 at 11:38 p.m.
All other issues aside, a significant difference between you and I is that I have not had to resort to name-calling to put forth my ideas.
need2no asked my opinion on how to tackle a tough problem, I gave him some starting points. He said it was a tough issue and I agree.
You, on the other hand, just repeat over and over your same "shove them in jail" and let the taxpayers cover their expenses for their lifetimes. This is the same theme you have been using for years under all your aliases.
What you are blind to is that deterrence doesn't work with persons who are carried away by their passions, be it anger, severe depression, radicalism, greed or envy, or just plain evil. At the moment they go for their gun to solve a problem the prospect of a lifetime in jail never enters their mind.
So, would a lifetime jail sentence influence the petty street thief, perhaps. But the increase in senseless murders that have become routine are generally not being committed by those people.
BTW, do you honestly object to the idea of keeping firearms safely away from children and the mentally infirm?
So, you can call me a left wing loon, but I think that small children and adult persons who are not able to tell right from wrong, should not "bear arms".
October 14, 2015 at 9:48 p.m.
@need2no,Welcome back, my last conversation with you was a little over 5 days ago. I'm honored that you think I know all the answers, however I can assure you that I don't.
That said, I'm just not willing to resort to hand wringing and taking the attitude that Americans are powerless to work on preventing gun violence.
I do think that "we" need to enforce our existing gun laws. And to enforce "we" need to fund and support that effort. As an example, the Armed and Prohibited Persons law in CA that was mentioned above needs more than 18 officers to investigate 17,000 cases.
More states need to adopt the attitude that they don't want prohibited persons to be armed.
I'd like to see states be required to promptly report persons who are adjudicated mentally unbalanced or unable to control their anger to the NICS system.
I'd like to see gun shop owners take responsibility for those to whom they sell firearms. (Just because you pass a background check, a gun shop owner can still refuse to sell - it is within their discretion already)
I'd like to have CCL trainers also take responsibility for those who they graduate. (CCl trainer already have the discretion to refuse to a person that they don't think will be responsible)
I'd like to see most guns safely way from children, or the mentally infirm.
That's just for starters, the point is that there are a lot of "small" steps that can work toward the goal of reducing gun violence.
I have nothing against gun ownership, and don't want to confiscate everyone's guns. But I am convinced that not everyone should be able to possess a gun simply because they are an American citizen and have the cash.
October 14, 2015 at 5:23 p.m.
Did you read the Booker ruling?
Even Booker aside, the question that Sensible asked was clear.The confiscation laws ARE the law, you either support enforcing the EXISTING law or you oppose the existing law.
Contrary to what you have said, apparently you do not want to have the current gun laws enforced.
October 11, 2015 at 9:36 p.m.
Not my interpretation, you disagree with the Supreme Court.
So back to the question... Do you believe that the existing gun laws should be enforced?
Do you support the NRA and gun lobby in opposing and hobbling EXISTING laws that permit firearm seizures in California, Indiana, Connecticut, Colorado from persons who have been determined to be prohibited?
October 11, 2015 at 8:54 p.m.
@ oviets:Your proposal....If able to be passed, the mandatory sentencing provision would be ruled unconstitutional and severed from the law.(see United States v. Booker).That would leave your law with only the "strengthening of background checks".
Regarding Sensible's question.... Do you believe that the existing gun laws should be enforced?
October 11, 2015 at 4:39 p.m.
"In the aftermath of Booker and other Supreme Court cases, such as Blakely v. Washington (2004), Sentencing guidelines are now considered advisory only."
Removing judge's discretion in sentencing would require a supreme court reversal. - fantasy thinking
"most offenders are repeat offenders" - how many of the mass shooting offenders were repeaters ?
Need2No:"Im not sure if gun violene can be prevented" - so why bother ! Stuff happens, just live with it.
October 8, 2015 at 10:56 p.m.
Go back and read what you originally wrote. You are in favor of making the laws stricter. Possibly what you to mean to say was that the laws are perfectly adequate right now. You want judges to impose heavier sentences.
What you actually said was that the laws needed to be stricter.
Your Republican supreme court overturned sentencing guidelines in Booker.
So what would you do to PREVENT gun violence?
October 8, 2015 at 2:32 p.m.
@Need2No,What you said was "enforce the ones (laws) we already have and make them stricter ".
I asked how you make a law "stricter" without changing the law.
Can I assume then that you are completely satisfied with the current background check laws? You wouldn't do anything more to prevent mentally ill persons to legally purchase firearms? You wouldn't do anything more the REQUIRE states to report mentally ill persons to the FBI background check system?
October 8, 2015 at 11:36 a.m.