Guns. I'm just throwing my point of view out there. If I'm wrong then explain it to me.

[westwall]

I've always viewed the gun problem similarly to the way I view the drug problem. It's an unfortunate situation that is only made more unfortunate when you make the people that want to use these things criminals for doing so. Supply and demand exists regardless of what the law has to say about it. If the consumer wants something bad enough and is willing to pay the price, somebody is willing to break the law to make money from that demand. You will never stop the movement and sale of drugs and guns. All the law can decide is who will make money off that demand. It's either going to be legitimate businesses that employ people and pay taxes, or dangerous and unregulated black market dealers. It seems to me that the only intelligent thing to do is to not make these things illegal so we can at least maintain some control. That comes with its own set of issues to overcome, but I adamantly believe that it's a clear cut greater good kind of situation.

I've always viewed the gun problem similarly to the way I view the drug problem. It's an unfortunate situation that is only made more unfortunate when you make the people that want to use these things criminals for doing so.

On the supply side, drugs and guns are similar. In terms of use, however, they are dissimilar in that the direct consequences of drug abuse are suffered only by the drug using buyer whereas the direct consequences of gun abuse most often adversely affect someone other than the gun using buyer. (The exception to the latter being when the buyer/owner mistakenly shoots themselves.) Another aspect of the usage difference is that guns continue to exist after being used whereas drugs do not.

Supply and demand exists regardless of what the law has to say about it.

There will most certainly be supply regardless of what the law says. The government assigning illicitness to the object curtails demand, but it won't eliminate demand. The economics of it are that the government making an item illegal results in a downward shift in supply and a correlated reduction in the quantity demanded and a higher "new" equilibrium price.

(Do not confuse a "shift" in supply or demand with a "change in quantity demanded/supplied. The image above depicts a downward shift in supply and the resulting change in quantity demanded.)
​

When supply shifts and latent (rather than effective) demand remains the same the result is still a change in the quantity demanded. That is because economically speaking, "demand" means (unless otherwise indicated) means "effective demand," which is synonymous with "goods/services actually sought and purchased." Similarly, "supply" means "goods actually produced and sold to demanders." Latent demand refers to goods/services consumers may intend to buy, but that they haven't bought or don't indeed buy, regardless of why they don't demand the good/service.

You will never stop the movement and sale of drugs and guns.

Nobody with any sense thinks the supply and demand will be stopped; paring of it is the goal. Therein lies the problem with the outcome-oriented gun-rights arguments I've seen; they're but sophistry predicated speciously on the notion that would-be implementers of "this or that" gun-control policy expect to stop rather than reduce the incidence of gun unlawful deaths and unintended gun-related injuries.

Why is absolute cessation not the goal of reasonable and intelligent people, policymakers? Because intelligent people don't set and strive for literally unattainable goals.

It seems to me that the only intelligent thing to do is to not make these things illegal so we can at least maintain some control.

There's nothing intelligent about focusing on the legality or illegality of guns; the focus needs to be on human behavior. The behavior that must be managed is that of gun owners, gun buyers and gun users, recognizing that the three states of being need not exist in one individual. Gun owners need to be spurred to behave such that they maintain sufficient control over their own gun that it is cannot be readily obtained [1] by unauthorized would-be users and/or thieves.

Economics informs us that by making guns illegal, fewer guns will be purchased. Fewer guns purchased will surely do something to interdict gun acquisitions, thus their unlawful use, by some people, namely they who will not steal a gun from someone whom they know has one and who has no other way to obtain one. I don't know how many people that will be, but it's sure to be more than zero people. (It is not logical to presume that a lawbreaker of "type A" is or will necessarily be also a lawbreaker of "type B." A thief is not necessarily a murderer. A pimp is not necessarily a murderer or thief.)

A plausible example of such an individual is the guy who recently shot Congressman Scalise and others; there's no reason to think that man would have unlawfully obtained a gun and then hauled his ass hundreds of miles to VA to shoot people. Another example is myself. If guns were illegal as are certain drugs, I'd have no idea where to get one and I'm not going to put myself at risk asking around to find out how to obtain one illegally. It's not as though illegal gun sellers are standing on the street corner as are drug sellers. That said, were guns illegal, there's no denying that some ne'er do wells would nonetheless find a way to get a gun, but some of them will have no way to do so; thus they will not get one and unlawfully use it.

In looking at behavior and the gun use process, one observes the following:

1. Producers make guns and sell them to lawful retailers. Finished goods not sent to retailers are the property of the producer. Finished goods in transit to a retailer may be the property of the retailer or the producer, depending on the terms of the sales contract.
2. Lawful retailers sell them to lawful buyers.
3. Lawful buyers either:
   • Lawfully use and adequately secure their guns, or
   • Lawfully use but fail to adequately secure their guns, or
   • Lawfully use but unlawfully sell them, or
   • Unlawfully use their guns.

Given that process, what I think we should pursue as a policy to reduce gun-related deaths and injuries is to enact a "strict liability" statute that makes the last registered lawful owner culpable, in equal or greater measure to the unauthorized gun user, for harm caused using the gun they lawfully purchased. [2] From there, one leaves it up to lawful owners to take whatever precautions align with the level of risk they are willing to assume should someone obtain their gun and use it unlawfully.



Notes:

1. "Readily obtained" --> Keeping one's gun secured on one's person or locked in a safe keeps it from being readily obtained. Stowing it under the seat or in the glove box of one's locked car does not keep it from being readily obtained.
2. The "greater" measure aspect would come into play when someone obtains a lawful owner's gun and accidentally does harm. That is what happens, for example, when a child gets hold of a gun and hurts someone.

No reason to think he would have broken the law? Are you high? He had already broken MULTIPLE laws. He was already known to be a violent asshole who was not a felon only because he had help from friends in high places. Yet again GOVERNMENT FAILED TO DO THEIR JOB because he was a pal.

Your logic is faulty.

 

[westwall]

You do have a point that it's not comparable to drugs.

It's comparable to drugs because in both situations it's completely ineffective to make them illegal for a very similar reason. It's not about how we feel about it, or what would be ideal. It's about what works and what is practical. It's about reality.

The majority of illegal guns used to commit crimes were originally purchased legally by someone else. They get stolen, or traded/sold without a required background check, and end up in criminal hands.
The idea behind strictly cutting back on gun ownership is that the criminals aren't going to have access to guns as easily either, because the guns aren't available to steal. Over time, as possession of an illegal weapon is enforced, criminals will have to do what they do in England, and carry a knife. Even the terrorists there have trouble getting their hands on guns. Using machetes and vans. So it definitely works.
Getting stabbed sucks, but it's a lot harder work for the killer and it doesn't usually result in as many deaths as a shooting. It's harm reduction, not harm elimination.

Wrong. As evidenced by the fact that Norway and Paris have had two mass shootings that killed more people than all of our mass shootings combined over the last 20 years, the simple fact is that we have a more violent population than exists in Europe. We have black and Hispanic gangs here that don't exist in Europe. However, as Europe welcomes in the violent middle easterners, their violent crime rates have been skyrocketing.

It is not the tool, it is the person using the tool that determines how it will be used.

 

[Chuz Life]

Have you bothered to find out the "why"?

People turn to crime because they are desperate and lack better options.

Not because they are lazy, greedy and want to take the shortest easiest path to what they think is wealth and success?

 

[MikeK]

You say that the "real problem is the "thug culture"" and that "The majority of violent crime perps are blacks and Latinos. You may want to look there and ask them why they turn to crime." I have looked into this, have you? I know, at least intellectually, why many of these people turn to crime. Do you? Have you bothered to do the research to support and understand your position? Have you bothered to find out the "why"?

How about helping us out with some explanations of the "why" you've referenced. If you know something, share it. It will be appreciated.

 

[SavannahMann]

You are wrong.

Number one, there is no "gun problem", so it's a waste to compare it to drugs.

The right to bear arms is a constitutional right, period.

The real problem is crime, and the people that commit violent crimes and "gun crimes". Most of the time they are repeat offenders, and people that have shown a history of violence. Our real problem is the "thug culture", and a justice system that lets them off the hook all too often and puts thugs right back on the streets. The solution is much stricter sentencing for violent crimes, we need to keep them locked up most of their adult lives. We need to build bigger prisons and keep them all locked up. We also need to keep mentally ill that have a tendency towards violence closely monitored and the dangerous ones in mental hospitals. Also crack down on illegal immigration since many gang bangers are illegals.

I think you are missing a HUGE part of the "problem" as well. And that is:

"Why are there so many turning to crime in the first place?"

Locking them up, will do nothing to solve that. It will only serve to put more people in jail. Figure out the "why" and solve that, the rest becomes much easier to manage, if not "solve" all together.

The majority of violent crime perps are blacks and Latinos. You may want to look there and ask them why they turn to crime. As I said the real problem is the "thug culture", which includes TV and music, etc. sensationalizing such violence. Some people may just be too dumb to separate fiction from real life.

But the answer is most definitely to increase prison sentences. Keeping thugs off the streets prevents them from committing more crime. We also need the death penalty for crimes like murder and rape standard.

Yeah, because increasing the prison population has worked so well. Wait, no it hasn't. It's expensive, and it is less effective in reducing repeat offenders. In fact, it just about guarantees that there will be repeat offenders.

But you won't listen, and you won't think, so you won't learn. You can lead them to water, but if you don't hold their hand they'll fall in and drown.

 

[OldLady]

You do have a point that it's not comparable to drugs.

It's comparable to drugs because in both situations it's completely ineffective to make them illegal for a very similar reason. It's not about how we feel about it, or what would be ideal. It's about what works and what is practical. It's about reality.

The majority of illegal guns used to commit crimes were originally purchased legally by someone else. They get stolen, or traded/sold without a required background check, and end up in criminal hands.
The idea behind strictly cutting back on gun ownership is that the criminals aren't going to have access to guns as easily either, because the guns aren't available to steal. Over time, as possession of an illegal weapon is enforced, criminals will have to do what they do in England, and carry a knife. Even the terrorists there have trouble getting their hands on guns. Using machetes and vans. So it definitely works.
Getting stabbed sucks, but it's a lot harder work for the killer and it doesn't usually result in as many deaths as a shooting. It's harm reduction, not harm elimination.

Wrong. As evidenced by the fact that Norway and Paris have had two mass shootings that killed more people than all of our mass shootings combined over the last 20 years, the simple fact is that we have a more violent population than exists in Europe. We have black and Hispanic gangs here that don't exist in Europe. However, as Europe welcomes in the violent middle easterners, their violent crime rates have been skyrocketing.

It is not the tool, it is the person using the tool that determines how it will be used.

I've been in this discussion so many times now that no matter what reply I offer, I know exactly what I will get back as a response. No sense, is there?
Open your eyes, Westwall, and stop making excuses. Pogo has a point that not just gun laws will "fix" the problem; a many pronged approach is necessary to stop the gun violence in this country. It is not just in the inner cities, but even if it were, is it any less important because of that? Can we just dismiss it as "not counting?"
Anyway, don't bother replying. I've heard it before, as you've heard this before. It's all part of the liturgy, the communal responses.

 

[theHawk]

You are wrong.

Number one, there is no "gun problem", so it's a waste to compare it to drugs.

The right to bear arms is a constitutional right, period.

The real problem is crime, and the people that commit violent crimes and "gun crimes". Most of the time they are repeat offenders, and people that have shown a history of violence. Our real problem is the "thug culture", and a justice system that lets them off the hook all too often and puts thugs right back on the streets. The solution is much stricter sentencing for violent crimes, we need to keep them locked up most of their adult lives. We need to build bigger prisons and keep them all locked up. We also need to keep mentally ill that have a tendency towards violence closely monitored and the dangerous ones in mental hospitals. Also crack down on illegal immigration since many gang bangers are illegals.

I think you are missing a HUGE part of the "problem" as well. And that is:

"Why are there so many turning to crime in the first place?"

Locking them up, will do nothing to solve that. It will only serve to put more people in jail. Figure out the "why" and solve that, the rest becomes much easier to manage, if not "solve" all together.

The majority of violent crime perps are blacks and Latinos. You may want to look there and ask them why they turn to crime. As I said the real problem is the "thug culture", which includes TV and music, etc. sensationalizing such violence. Some people may just be too dumb to separate fiction from real life.

But the answer is most definitely to increase prison sentences. Keeping thugs off the streets prevents them from committing more crime. We also need the death penalty for crimes like murder and rape standard.

You say that the "real problem is the "thug culture"" and that "The majority of violent crime perps are blacks and Latinos. You may want to look there and ask them why they turn to crime." I have looked into this, have you? I know, at least intellectually, why many of these people turn to crime. Do you? Have you bothered to do the research to support and understand your position? Have you bothered to find out the "why"?

No, I'm not going to waste my time investigating "why" thugs are thugs. The government should not waste its time either. We are a nation of laws, and people that break them should be held accountable. Giving them a pass because you'd rather look at the reasons they commit crimes is dangerous to society. It's exactly why we have repeat offenders and countless victims that should had never become victims.

So, are you saying that you don't care that these people don't see any other options? Most of them are just trying to survive and provide for themselves and their families. Are you saying that matters nothing to you? If so, then there is nothing that I, or anyone else can say. THAT would be a very cold and unfeeling way to look at the world. I pity those who do.

Nope I don't care. I feel no remorse for criminal scum that commit violence.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I've always viewed the gun problem similarly to the way I view the drug problem. It's an unfortunate situation that is only made more unfortunate when you make the people that want to use these things criminals for doing so. Supply and demand exists regardless of what the law has to say about it. If the consumer wants something bad enough and is willing to pay the price, somebody is willing to break the law to make money from that demand. You will never stop the movement and sale of drugs and guns. All the law can decide is who will make money off that demand. It's either going to be legitimate businesses that employ people and pay taxes, or dangerous and unregulated black market dealers. It seems to me that the only intelligent thing to do is to not make these things illegal so we can at least maintain some control. That comes with its own set of issues to overcome, but I adamantly believe that it's a clear cut greater good kind of situation.

I've always viewed the gun problem similarly to the way I view the drug problem. It's an unfortunate situation that is only made more unfortunate when you make the people that want to use these things criminals for doing so.

On the supply side, drugs and guns are similar. In terms of use, however, they are dissimilar in that the direct consequences of drug abuse are suffered only by the drug using buyer whereas the direct consequences of gun abuse most often adversely affect someone other than the gun using buyer. (The exception to the latter being when the buyer/owner mistakenly shoots themselves.) Another aspect of the usage difference is that guns continue to exist after being used whereas drugs do not.

Supply and demand exists regardless of what the law has to say about it.

There will most certainly be supply regardless of what the law says. The government assigning illicitness to the object curtails demand, but it won't eliminate demand. The economics of it are that the government making an item illegal results in a downward shift in supply and a correlated reduction in the quantity demanded and a higher "new" equilibrium price.

(Do not confuse a "shift" in supply or demand with a "change in quantity demanded/supplied. The image above depicts a downward shift in supply and the resulting change in quantity demanded.)
​

When supply shifts and latent (rather than effective) demand remains the same the result is still a change in the quantity demanded. That is because economically speaking, "demand" means (unless otherwise indicated) means "effective demand," which is synonymous with "goods/services actually sought and purchased." Similarly, "supply" means "goods actually produced and sold to demanders." Latent demand refers to goods/services consumers may intend to buy, but that they haven't bought or don't indeed buy, regardless of why they don't demand the good/service.

You will never stop the movement and sale of drugs and guns.

Nobody with any sense thinks the supply and demand will be stopped; paring of it is the goal. Therein lies the problem with the outcome-oriented gun-rights arguments I've seen; they're but sophistry predicated speciously on the notion that would-be implementers of "this or that" gun-control policy expect to stop rather than reduce the incidence of gun unlawful deaths and unintended gun-related injuries.

Why is absolute cessation not the goal of reasonable and intelligent people, policymakers? Because intelligent people don't set and strive for literally unattainable goals.

It seems to me that the only intelligent thing to do is to not make these things illegal so we can at least maintain some control.

There's nothing intelligent about focusing on the legality or illegality of guns; the focus needs to be on human behavior. The behavior that must be managed is that of gun owners, gun buyers and gun users, recognizing that the three states of being need not exist in one individual. Gun owners need to be spurred to behave such that they maintain sufficient control over their own gun that it is cannot be readily obtained [1] by unauthorized would-be users and/or thieves.

Economics informs us that by making guns illegal, fewer guns will be purchased. Fewer guns purchased will surely do something to interdict gun acquisitions, thus their unlawful use, by some people, namely they who will not steal a gun from someone whom they know has one and who has no other way to obtain one. I don't know how many people that will be, but it's sure to be more than zero people. (It is not logical to presume that a lawbreaker of "type A" is or will necessarily be also a lawbreaker of "type B." A thief is not necessarily a murderer. A pimp is not necessarily a murderer or thief.)

A plausible example of such an individual is the guy who recently shot Congressman Scalise and others; there's no reason to think that man would have unlawfully obtained a gun and then hauled his ass hundreds of miles to VA to shoot people. Another example is myself. If guns were illegal as are certain drugs, I'd have no idea where to get one and I'm not going to put myself at risk asking around to find out how to obtain one illegally. It's not as though illegal gun sellers are standing on the street corner as are drug sellers. That said, were guns illegal, there's no denying that some ne'er do wells would nonetheless find a way to get a gun, but some of them will have no way to do so; thus they will not get one and unlawfully use it.

In looking at behavior and the gun use process, one observes the following:

1. Producers make guns and sell them to lawful retailers. Finished goods not sent to retailers are the property of the producer. Finished goods in transit to a retailer may be the property of the retailer or the producer, depending on the terms of the sales contract.
2. Lawful retailers sell them to lawful buyers.
3. Lawful buyers either:
   • Lawfully use and adequately secure their guns, or
   • Lawfully use but fail to adequately secure their guns, or
   • Lawfully use but unlawfully sell them, or
   • Unlawfully use their guns.

Given that process, what I think we should pursue as a policy to reduce gun-related deaths and injuries is to enact a "strict liability" statute that makes the last registered lawful owner culpable, in equal or greater measure to the unauthorized gun user, for harm caused using the gun they lawfully purchased. [2] From there, one leaves it up to lawful owners to take whatever precautions align with the level of risk they are willing to assume should someone obtain their gun and use it unlawfully.



Notes:

1. "Readily obtained" --> Keeping one's gun secured on one's person or locked in a safe keeps it from being readily obtained. Stowing it under the seat or in the glove box of one's locked car does not keep it from being readily obtained.
2. The "greater" measure aspect would come into play when someone obtains a lawful owner's gun and accidentally does harm. That is what happens, for example, when a child gets hold of a gun and hurts someone.

No reason to think he would have broken the law? Are you high? He had already broken MULTIPLE laws. He was already known to be a violent asshole who was not a felon only because he had help from friends in high places. Yet again GOVERNMENT FAILED TO DO THEIR JOB because he was a pal.

Your logic is faulty.

Were you to duly consider the nature of the specific solution proposal I made, you'd discover that whether I'm correct or not about Hodgkinson has no bearing on the proposal's potential efficacy. Furthermore, under the proposal I made, even if by dint of "whatever"authorities could not obtain a conviction of Hodgkinson on counts of shooting others, he would, provided he used a gun he lawfully purchased, be convicted for its being used to harm others. Thus, if liberals are to take exception with it, their rational basis for doing so must be on the legal concept of mens rea. Any such argument would necessarily be normative not positive.

 

[theHawk]

You are wrong.

Number one, there is no "gun problem", so it's a waste to compare it to drugs.

The right to bear arms is a constitutional right, period.

The real problem is crime, and the people that commit violent crimes and "gun crimes". Most of the time they are repeat offenders, and people that have shown a history of violence. Our real problem is the "thug culture", and a justice system that lets them off the hook all too often and puts thugs right back on the streets. The solution is much stricter sentencing for violent crimes, we need to keep them locked up most of their adult lives. We need to build bigger prisons and keep them all locked up. We also need to keep mentally ill that have a tendency towards violence closely monitored and the dangerous ones in mental hospitals. Also crack down on illegal immigration since many gang bangers are illegals.

I think you are missing a HUGE part of the "problem" as well. And that is:

"Why are there so many turning to crime in the first place?"

Locking them up, will do nothing to solve that. It will only serve to put more people in jail. Figure out the "why" and solve that, the rest becomes much easier to manage, if not "solve" all together.

The majority of violent crime perps are blacks and Latinos. You may want to look there and ask them why they turn to crime. As I said the real problem is the "thug culture", which includes TV and music, etc. sensationalizing such violence. Some people may just be too dumb to separate fiction from real life.

But the answer is most definitely to increase prison sentences. Keeping thugs off the streets prevents them from committing more crime. We also need the death penalty for crimes like murder and rape standard.

Yeah, because increasing the prison population has worked so well. Wait, no it hasn't. It's expensive, and it is less effective in reducing repeat offenders. In fact, it just about guarantees that there will be repeat offenders.

But you won't listen, and you won't think, so you won't learn. You can lead them to water, but if you don't hold their hand they'll fall in and drown.

We haven't t increased prison capacity, we've let thugs go on parole only to see them slaughter people again.

We should be executing most convicted murderers to make room for other criminals and save on tax dollars. Of course we need to end the idiotic death row system we have now that automatically appeals them and wastes decades, tax money, and delays justice for the victims.

 

[bitter clinging swiftie]

You are wrong.

Number one, there is no "gun problem", so it's a waste to compare it to drugs.

The right to bear arms is a constitutional right, period.

The real problem is crime, and the people that commit violent crimes and "gun crimes". Most of the time they are repeat offenders, and people that have shown a history of violence. Our real problem is the "thug culture", and a justice system that lets them off the hook all too often and puts thugs right back on the streets. The solution is much stricter sentencing for violent crimes, we need to keep them locked up most of their adult lives. We need to build bigger prisons and keep them all locked up. We also need to keep mentally ill that have a tendency towards violence closely monitored and the dangerous ones in mental hospitals. Also crack down on illegal immigration since many gang bangers are illegals.

I think you are missing a HUGE part of the "problem" as well. And that is:

"Why are there so many turning to crime in the first place?"

Locking them up, will do nothing to solve that. It will only serve to put more people in jail. Figure out the "why" and solve that, the rest becomes much easier to manage, if not "solve" all together.

The majority of violent crime perps are blacks and Latinos. You may want to look there and ask them why they turn to crime. As I said the real problem is the "thug culture", which includes TV and music, etc. sensationalizing such violence. Some people may just be too dumb to separate fiction from real life.

But the answer is most definitely to increase prison sentences. Keeping thugs off the streets prevents them from committing more crime. We also need the death penalty for crimes like murder and rape standard.

Yeah, because increasing the prison population has worked so well. Wait, no it hasn't. It's expensive, and it is less effective in reducing repeat offenders. In fact, it just about guarantees that there will be repeat offenders.

But you won't listen, and you won't think, so you won't learn. You can lead them to water, but if you don't hold their hand they'll fall in and drown.

We haven't t increased prison capacity, we've let thugs go on parole only to see them slaughter people again.

We should be executing most convicted murderers to make room for other criminals and save on tax dollars. Of course we need to end the idiotic death row system we have now that automatically appeals them and wastes decades, tax money, and delays justice for the victims.

the appeals process is VERY important....especially given the number of falsely convicted men released from death row

 

[SavannahMann]

You are wrong.

Number one, there is no "gun problem", so it's a waste to compare it to drugs.

The right to bear arms is a constitutional right, period.

The real problem is crime, and the people that commit violent crimes and "gun crimes". Most of the time they are repeat offenders, and people that have shown a history of violence. Our real problem is the "thug culture", and a justice system that lets them off the hook all too often and puts thugs right back on the streets. The solution is much stricter sentencing for violent crimes, we need to keep them locked up most of their adult lives. We need to build bigger prisons and keep them all locked up. We also need to keep mentally ill that have a tendency towards violence closely monitored and the dangerous ones in mental hospitals. Also crack down on illegal immigration since many gang bangers are illegals.

I think you are missing a HUGE part of the "problem" as well. And that is:

"Why are there so many turning to crime in the first place?"

Locking them up, will do nothing to solve that. It will only serve to put more people in jail. Figure out the "why" and solve that, the rest becomes much easier to manage, if not "solve" all together.

The majority of violent crime perps are blacks and Latinos. You may want to look there and ask them why they turn to crime. As I said the real problem is the "thug culture", which includes TV and music, etc. sensationalizing such violence. Some people may just be too dumb to separate fiction from real life.

But the answer is most definitely to increase prison sentences. Keeping thugs off the streets prevents them from committing more crime. We also need the death penalty for crimes like murder and rape standard.

Yeah, because increasing the prison population has worked so well. Wait, no it hasn't. It's expensive, and it is less effective in reducing repeat offenders. In fact, it just about guarantees that there will be repeat offenders.

But you won't listen, and you won't think, so you won't learn. You can lead them to water, but if you don't hold their hand they'll fall in and drown.

We haven't t increased prison capacity, we've let thugs go on parole only to see them slaughter people again.

We should be executing most convicted murderers to make room for other criminals and save on tax dollars. Of course we need to end the idiotic death row system we have now that automatically appeals them and wastes decades, tax money, and delays justice for the victims.

And those falsely convicted and sentenced to death for crimes they did not commit? What happens to them in your rush to persecute someone?

Let's be honest. When someone gets out of prison they are not encouraged to rejoin society, they are prohibited. They are prohibited from regaining many of their rights including the right to vote in many states. They can't get many jobs, including what would be called skilled labor jobs because they have a conviction. So the best they can hope for is a construction job, providing that the job site is not for any Government group or contract. Or some minimum wage job. So they have little choice but to return to crime.

We know that Minimum wage jobs are not intended to pay a living wage. We know the jobs are intended to be a start to the work experience, a first block in your job history. But for those who can't move up the ladder because the ladder is closed off what then?

That's the problem with your punish everyone mentality. We've been using it for years, it isn't really working. Repeat offenders become repeat offenders because we warehouse them and minor criminals come out of prison as major criminals. No chance to move on after paying their debts.

The system is completely broken, and it isn't that the system is too lienient, it's that the puritan mentality is still too prevalent. I could site examples but you would denounce them and stomp your foot and demand more flesh from the crims.

 

[bitter clinging swiftie]

here in Texas, ex convicts canvote, and five years after release, they get a limited version of their second amendment back. as far as employment, the longer one stays out, the less their conviction matters

 

[whitehall]

The post confounds me...to quote ..."it's an unfortunate situation that is only made more unfortunate when you make the people that want to use these things criminals for doing so". Is the post supposed to be a NRA ad or is it part of a stealth dirty tricks democrat party agenda? It's only been a couple of weeks since a radicalized democrat party operative tried to assassinate republican congress people.

 

[Markle]

Gun laws obviously are not the answer but part of the answer is simple.

Chicago has increased the penalty for selling a gun in Chicago. As if that has worked before.

We have not eliminated gun violence in Florida but we have cut gun crime drastically without 10-20-Life law. Be in possession of a gun in the commission of a crime and the minimum sentence is 10 years. Fire the gun and injure no one it is a 20 year minimum sentence. Carry a gun during the commission of a crime, fire the gun and hit someone, not necessarily kill them and it is a life sentence. That doesn't punish law abiding citizens but it does take criminals off the street for a long time if they carry or injure someone with a gun.

The other is to revise our welfare laws.

Prior to Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty and Great Society, the black family unit was among our strongest. Now it is one of the weakest.

Other than money, what do you think is the primary difference between a youngster growing up in Chicago below the poverty level or well above the poverty level?

 

[Iceweasel]

The right wipes their ass with with the constitution OTHER than the 2nd . Don't think so? Just ask them about state issued voter ID and watch them pull a 180 on people's con rights .

We have a probleM with crazy and criminals getting guns . All guns are born "legal" Gun nut states make it too easy for them to fall into the illega market . So easy that even teenagers can score an illegal gun. So you are right about the supply .

The right to vote is reserved for CITIZENS and you obviously have no understanding what that means. The left has/is corrupting society with their entitlement victimhood mentality. Guns have always been part of our culture, it used to be much easier to get them, no background checks, we could mail order them or walk into a hardware store and walk out with one.

What changed is society and liberals are incapable of seeing the deterioration so must blame an inanimate object, something they can see and touch. It's as far as their thinking permits.

 

[Iceweasel]

Have you bothered to find out the "why"?

People turn to crime because they are desperate and lack better options.

Nope. We didn't see it during the Depression. People have more opportunities now than ever. You can find excuses or opportunities.

 

[MaryL]

I've always viewed the gun problem similarly to the way I view the drug problem. It's an unfortunate situation that is only made more unfortunate when you make the people that want to use these things criminals for doing so. Supply and demand exists regardless of what the law has to say about it. If the consumer wants something bad enough and is willing to pay the price, somebody is willing to break the law to make money from that demand. You will never stop the movement and sale of drugs and guns. All the law can decide is who will make money off that demand. It's either going to be legitimate businesses that employ people and pay taxes, or dangerous and unregulated black market dealers. It seems to me that the only intelligent thing to do is to not make these things illegal so we can at least maintain some control. That comes with its own set of issues to overcome, but I adamantly believe that it's a clear cut greater good kind of situation.

Ah, yes, capitalism uber ales. Amorality wins again. Yay! Profits are all we are worried about, not reason or necessity.

 

[Iceweasel]

Ah, yes, capitalism uber ales. Amorality wins again. Yay! Profits are all we are worried about, not reason or necessity.

What's wrong with profits? It's how companies keep providing good products. I like choices.

 

[12icer]

one other thing you are forgetting is that a firearm is a very simple device....any jimmyearl with some metal, a bench lathe and 12 ton press and some know how, can manufacture a pretty decent quality firarm in his garage...google "khyber pass copy"

I have pointed that out in the past as well.

If the meat puppet faggot could have waved his magic dildo and made all the guns in the country disappear, the next day everyone with a handful of files, a vise, and a piece of steel would be busy making more guns.

They're not going away no matter what law is passed.

I can only assume you are referring to President Obama. If this is the case, show some respect. The man was OUR President, I disagree with him on many things, that does not change the fact that he is a former President, and deserves the respect that office commands. I really don't care how much you hate him, show the OFFICE some respect at least.

As the left does the current president I guess!!

 

[bitter clinging swiftie]

one other thing you are forgetting is that a firearm is a very simple device....any jimmyearl with some metal, a bench lathe and 12 ton press and some know how, can manufacture a pretty decent quality firarm in his garage...google "khyber pass copy"

I have pointed that out in the past as well.

If the meat puppet faggot could have waved his magic dildo and made all the guns in the country disappear, the next day everyone with a handful of files, a vise, and a piece of steel would be busy making more guns.

They're not going away no matter what law is passed.

I can only assume you are referring to President Obama. If this is the case, show some respect. The man was OUR President, I disagree with him on many things, that does not change the fact that he is a former President, and deserves the respect that office commands. I really don't care how much you hate him, show the OFFICE some respect at least.

As the left does the current president I guess!!

I call him either hoebama or lil Mao wow.....and call trump president biff or presidnet tannen