posted
So maybe we should just have laws preventing people on parol from buying weapons. What's that you say? We already have laws like that? Well then, why not enforce them? That's how the liberal idea of gun control laws works: pass new law, don't enforce law, say "law doesn't work, must need new law", repeat step one.
But seriously, if you did a background check for previous criminal record before selling someone a gun, and refuse to sell them one if they're on parol or previously commited a violent crime and was released from prison within, say, the last five years, it seems like that would eliminate a very high percentage of gun-related crime.
Maybe that should be part of sentencing for convicts of violent crimes. "This court sentences you to ten years in prison, with possibility of parol after five years. This court also rules that you will not be allowed to purchace a firearm for five years after your release." It makes more sense for a judge to, well, judge each situation, rather than use broad legal generalizations. Just say that the judges CAN, not that they have to.
------------------ Mephistopheles's Repossessions and Furnace Works C/O Mephistopheles, Cain, Brutus, Medici, Torquemada, Richelieu, Metternich, Tweed, Rasputin & Daley, Attorneys-at-Law 1 Perdition-on-the-Styx Plaza Dis, The Nether Regions
posted
It's not only against the law to sell a gun to someone on parole for certain offenses, it's against the law (and a violation of parole) to try to buy a gun, if you are such a parolee. If background checks have been so effective in preventing people who aren't legally permitted to possess firearms from purchasing them (how many have been prevented? I haven't got the statistics), then why has there not been a corresponding increase in arrests for parole violation?
Trying to buy a gun is a violation of parole terms, and the person who violates parole this way must return to jail to serve the remaining portion of his sentence. Why is this not happening?
I agree that simply passing laws is an inneffective means of dealing with the problem of violent crime. The laws which already exist should be sufficient, if they are enforced. Passing new laws without enforcing them is as effective as saying "isn't that a shame?" whenever a crime is committed.
If the objective is not eliminating violent crime, but simply eliminating guns, then perhaps the tactic of not enforcing existing laws makes sense. If you can continue to convince enough people that "since the new law doesn't work" you can sell the need to pass another, more draconian law. Eventually, unless enough people catch on, you can pass the law you wanted to pass in the first place, disarming all the people who weren't making trouble anyway.
Outlawing firearms does not remove a single weapon from the hands of a single criminal, unless you count all the people who were formerly law-abiding citizens who are now, by definition, criminals, due to the fact that their formerly-legal possessions are now contraband, making them criminals by default. Disarming people who are not violating the law will have no positive effect on the crime rate.
posted
Liam: We do have bus service in the area I live in, the capitol city, and the area around the city for about twenty miles. No local trains. Both buses and passenger trains are rare in West Virginia.
------------------ Fool of a Took, throw yourself in next time!! Gandalf
posted
Just out of curiosity, does this idea of laws not applying to criminals and therefore having no meaning extend beyond the issue of gun control? This 20 m/h speed limit in school zones, for example. Since when does the state have the authority to tell me how fast I can drive? Only hardened criminals break traffic laws anyway. And if I want to pass a bus while red lights are flashing, that should be my right. I paid for the car, after all.
------------------ "I wish that everything went just as I wish everything would go." -- John Linnell
posted
The road's public property, and therefore the government does, in fact, have the authority to tell you how fast you can drive and under what conditions. If I tell you that you can come on to my property, but only if you're doing backward handsprings, and you just walk up to my door, I can have you arrested for trespassing. Same deal. It's my property, and you can either do what I say or get your butt off of it.
------------------ Mephistopheles's Repossessions and Furnace Works C/O Mephistopheles, Cain, Brutus, Medici, Torquemada, Richelieu, Metternich, Tweed, Rasputin & Daley, Attorneys-at-Law 1 Perdition-on-the-Styx Plaza Dis, The Nether Regions
Saltah'na
Chinese Canadian, or 75% Commie Bastard.
Member # 33
posted
Omega: So maybe we should just have laws preventing people on parol from buying weapons. What's that you say? We already have laws like that? Well then, why not enforce them? That's how the liberal idea of gun control laws works: pass new law, don't enforce law, say "law doesn't work, must need new law", repeat step one.
You have very low opinions on Liberals, don't you? It seems apparent that Conservatives attack Liberals for every small mistake.
Liberals do NOT do what you say. Contrary to what you think, Gun Control is enforced up here in Canada. How well? well, admittedly, I don't know, but don't hold me to that. The reason why gun control is doing so badly down in the USA is that your conservatives actually sabotage each and every single gun control law that your government to make society a better place.
I just heard that Los Angeles has run a gun-show convention out of town. Good for them.
Baloo: If the objective is not eliminating violent crime, but simply eliminating guns, then perhaps the tactic of not enforcing existing laws makes sense. If you can continue to convince enough people that "since the new law doesn't work" you can sell the need to pass another, more draconian law. Eventually, unless enough people catch on, you can pass the law you wanted to pass in the first place, disarming all the people who weren't making trouble anyway.
I'd have to agree with this point, although I don't support it. Sure, people wants to own guns, fine. Just abide by the rules. Abide by the Gun-Control rules which won't hurt you, but make your home a better place to live. I'll give you credit for the fact that you are very conscious about keeping your guns away from your son until he is old enough.
But how old will he be when you plan to train him about proper gun usage? 12? 13? Here in Ontario, the Conservatives passed a law allowing kids as young as 12 to start firearms training. Their intention is to train people about proper firearms usage. But this may backfire: pretty soon, you may have a troubled youth with advanced firearms knowledge (thanks to the new law), walking through with guns under their trenchcoats and causing yet another Columbine.
You want proper firearms usage? Simple. Don't use them. Unless you're a dedicated police officer.
First of Two: Take Minneapolis. A fair city, as cities go, low gang membership, etc. However, 45% of murders in Minneapolis from 1994-1997 were classified by the police as "gang-related." 45.4% of those arrested for all those murders were gang members. On average, the 234 Minneapolis murderers had 7.4 prior arrests, including 175 drug offenses, 173 violent crimes, 169 property crimes, and 82 prior weapons offenses.
31.4% were on felony probation.
(Kleck, ibid.)
seems to me it isn't the guns that are the problem.
Pardon me while a shoot a big hole in your statistic, but yes, guns ARE the problem, especially how accessible they are to these gang members who shoot each other and any innocent bystanders that get in the way. Proper enforcement of Gun Control is supposed to deal with this, to make it a lot harder for them to obtain these weapons (and more punishing when they do). Too bad for you guys though, those damned Republicans just drilled your most recent attempt to make your place a safer place to live.
To my knowledge, the gun control law is supposed to ban lethal weapons like machine guns, certain handguns and the like. For all other weapons, they are to be registered and a background check done on the owner. Let's compare this to getting a car: Like guns, you need to register your cars as well. And like guns, a background check has to be done to see if you are legally able to drive a car.
Like our Prime Minister said quite a while ago: "We make people register their cars, why not make them register their guns?"
Where's the trouble in that?
------------------ I can resist anything....... Except Temptation
[This message has been edited by Tahna Los (edited December 14, 1999).]
posted
Can someone tell me how many of those kids who participated in those school shootings had gun training?
------------------ "I suppose you thought I was dead? No such thing. Don't flatter yourselves that I haven't got my eye upon you. I am wide awake, and you give plenty to look at." Household Words, Aug. 24, 1850 From the Raven in the Happy Family
posted
Tahna: We are flooded with guns in the USA. Taking away the right to own one would only leave them in the hands of criminals.
As to the kids in Colorado, they made a video tape before going on their shooting spree, a guy from a gun store had called the house to tell one of the fathers that his clips had arrived. The boy said that if his father had checked into the call, they would have been caught before the shooting. Those two should never have been aloud to buy clips, or any other parts of a gun. They made this tape in the basement of one of there homes, outlineing what they were going to do, and gave hate as the reason. They hated everyone and everything. So much rage for ones so young.
(Thanks 1stof2, I keep thinking of Cloumbine as Texas for some reason)
------------------ Fool of a Took, throw yourself in next time!! Gandalf
[This message has been edited by Kosh (edited December 14, 1999).]
[This message has been edited by Kosh (edited December 15, 1999).]
posted
That wasn't Texas, that was Columbine, Colorado. And those kids broke SO many preexisting laws that it doesn't bear mentioning. And there was a record of other trouble, threats, as well. If anybody had been paying attention, the whole thing could have been prevented.
>"Pardon me while a shoot a big hole in your statistic, but yes, guns ARE the problem, especially how accessible they are to these gang members who shoot each other and any innocent bystanders that get in the way. Proper enforcement of Gun Control is supposed to deal with this, to make it a lot harder for them to obtain these weapons (and more punishing when they do). Too bad for you guys though, those damned Republicans just drilled your most recent attempt to make your place a safer place to live."
HAHAHA! You actually BELIEVE this? No wonder we aren't making any progress! Kid, those gang members ALREADY obtain guns illegally! in fact, it's usually the ONLY way they get guns! So tell me, how is another law going to change that? It CAN'T. And it's NOT the Republicans who are failing to enforce the laws... much as I hate to agree with Omega, it's the generally liberalized justice system that's doing that! Richmond, VA is enforcing its "use a gun in a crime, automatic 5 years tacked on in the federal pen, with no parole" laws now for the first time... and drawing some left-wing fire for doing so. (Oh, and you can't "poke a hole" in a statistic without quoting a more relevant statistic... like how many gang members came by their guns using currently legal means...although you probably wouldn't want to do that, as it would likely support MY case more than yours.)
Baloo: You hit the nail on the head, sir. Pass a lot of laws, conveniently ignore enforcing them, then ride the public outcry over the next tragedy to even stricter measures, hopefully to an outright ban. THAT one, of course, you enforce.
No, the guns aren't the problem. Guns are neutral objects, neither good nor evil. (In actuality, guns are used thousands of times more for a "good" end -- in law enforcement, preventing crimes by their mere display, etc. -- than for "evil" ones. This statement is unassailable, and the UCR bears it out.)
Scum, and our failure to deal with scum properly, is the problem. Our reluctance to see that that is the actual problem is the secondary problem. We continue to insist that all these people with 7 arrests to their record need is a "second chance" -- which, 80% of the time, turns into a third, fourth, fifth, etc chance. And this doesn't just apply to gun homicides. Can you guess the percentage of DUI vehicular homicides perpetrated by people with a long history of DUI behaviour or other arrests?
a)90% b)80% c)75% d)85%
Final answer?
Oh, and about the rules for gun safety... 12 is a very late start to teach them. _I_ knew enough to stay out of my father's den (where the guns are kept) at FOUR, even though I didn't really know why. I was, as I recall, seven when my father let me fire a pistol, after showing me just what could happen (with props like a watermelon and a gallon jug full of water) if I misused it. I learned the Three Laws immediately thereafter, and though I still live with guns, use them, and probably will forever, I have never had either the desire to use them on a human being, NOR any form of accident. Nor will I, unless it become necessary to protect myself or my close ones from an intruder who some 'feel-good' allowed out on the street on 'parole.'
------------------ Calvin: "No efficiency, no accountability... I tell you, Hobbes, it's a lousy way to run a Universe." -- Bill Watterson
[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited December 14, 1999).]
posted
Hey, First of Two, I have an idea. Since we appear to agree on politics more often than not, how about when I run for president, you be my running mate. Then, after my allowed two terms, you'd have a much better chance of being elected World Dictator!
Tahna:
I'm talking US liberals. Liberalism and conservatism are relative terms depending on what system you're under. What we call a liberal here would probably be a moderate up there, what with your socialized medicine and all. Hey, would you mind if we sent you some of our liberals? They'd love it up there, and average intelligence in both countries would go up! (Just kidding, of course. I love Canada, thanks to one too many eps of "Due South".)
"You have very low opinions on Liberals, don't you? It seems apparent that Conservatives attack Liberals for every small mistake."
Yep, I do have a low opinion of US liberal philosophies. Most liberals here don't think about what they're asked to believe, they just believe it. Like my grandfather. He'd vote for Satan if he was on the Democratic ticket. Those that do actually think about their beliefs are almost invariably socialists more interested in their own power than the well-being of the country. I have no tolerance for either unthinking people or uncaring, selfish people.
------------------ Mephistopheles's Repossessions and Furnace Works C/O Mephistopheles, Cain, Brutus, Medici, Torquemada, Richelieu, Metternich, Tweed, Rasputin & Daley, Attorneys-at-Law 1 Perdition-on-the-Styx Plaza Dis, The Nether Regions
Omega: "Unthinking people or uncaring, selfish people" are exactly what liberals call conservatives and vice versa, as I've stated in another thread. Thanks for using the phrase, anyway.
[We now return you to our regularly-scheduled thread.]
posted
True, but I think the reasons I gave for the label are valid, whereas theirs (when they bother to give any at all) aren't. Of course, I'm judging my own rationality, so my opinion isn't exactly objective. If you can name one reason why conservatives can be called "unthinking", or "uncaring" and "selfish", be my guest.
There's also a third, relatively small group I didn't mention: those who acctually do think about liberal policies, know they're socialist, and think that socialism IS best for the country. The problem here is that they must either not know or choose to ignore all of history, because every single time socialism has been tried, from Plymouth to USSR, it failed. These I can deal with, because since they actually think, they can be reasoned with, and thus shown that socialism has never, and will never, work.
------------------ Mephistopheles's Repossessions and Furnace Works C/O Mephistopheles, Cain, Brutus, Medici, Torquemada, Richelieu, Metternich, Tweed, Rasputin & Daley, Attorneys-at-Law 1 Perdition-on-the-Styx Plaza Dis, The Nether Regions
Printer-friendly view of this topic
