Northcountryman

No arguments here but again , the punishment should indeed , fit the crime .

Correct , and that is called justice ; that’s what I’m saying exactly . Im Afraid that if you adjudicate entirely from the Vantage point of meting our justice based on perceived intention, you’ll end up under punishing some perps too, ironically .

This thread is discussing infringing/modifying/restricting a Constitutional right. What you just discussed is a law. Yes , correct , but digressed a bit when we started taking about crime and capital punishment. I can’t remember who brought it up first — me or you — and I don’t feel like looking it up but , needless to say , we digressed lol.

How can you be sure

I hear you but I dont think its justice if you were to terminate his (or her) life when no life has been taken; in fact, no harm was even done to intended target.

Is that justice though? You have to remember that THE most impt objective of the Criminal justice Sytem in general, is to ensure that Justice is served. Determining what kind/degree of punishment is suitable due to the commission of a crime is is an integral part of that equation and the calculus involves BOTH intent and RESULT of said crime. Even if someone is attempting to murder someone else, the fact that they didnt--the other person being alive due to a mistake, stroke of luck, etc.--is an impt element to this equation IMHO and should be considered when meting out punishment. In a case like that, I most certainly would not sentence them to death; rather, I would put them away for quite a long time. I do not consider that justice when --despite your bad intentions-- the other person is still alive AND completely unharmed. Some people may see the situation quite differently and I respect that but for me, thats where I stand as of right now.

Yes, that is true, good point--so maybe a basic firearms safety course for all guns no matter what kind or none at all then? I would be very uncomfortable with NO course but hey, maybe you guys are right and its overregulaatory and/or ineffective anyway.

Really, I figured they all required it; you know any of them top of your head? Well, , maybe there is data that does and maybe there isnt, IDK, but it certainly cant hurt as a precautionarymeasure. I agree completely last thing you said; some of the guys in my club could use a good handgun safety refresher course!!

Yes, thats a Good point , but judge doesnt have to let them out ; they can be sentenced to life without parole or at the very least, be put away for a very long time.

I certainly would throw their butt in jail for a very long time--maybe even for life-- but again, if noone died , not sure I would impose the death penalty. However, I'm not saying a judge COULDNT sentence somone to death under these circumstances -- theres a big difference, as Im sure you know, between mandating a minimum penalty vs having the flexibility to impose it, mitigating circumstances dictating its , of course. in your example, youre talking about shooting at someone in a drive by, missing , and then accidentally hitting and killing aneighbor kid in the next house? Is that right ? If the kid died , then yes, impose the death penalty because a death resulted from an attempted murder, even if the victim was not the intended target. If no death, then no death penalty--period.

I was thinking more for negligent homicide because I believe you said death penalty I ALL cases resulting in injury or death from a gun . Based on your example though — I’d have to think about it more —but As of right now , I think that even in that case, yes , no death penalty because , even if he intended to kill , he did not so , depending upon how one looks at it , he “ got lucky missing or a misfire occurring , etc. “ On the down side though , if he truly intending to kill and missed , I guess he would consider that unlucky lol. I could be persuaded to change my mind on this one btw , as it’s not a for unshakeable position I subscribe to by any stretch.

For commercial use , I would agree but private ? Nah !!

Good point , no doubt

Maybe , I’m definitely not opposed to capital punishment , I’m just not sure if Incidents involving injuries Only should result in the death penalty

I don’t know , but it certainly could decrease the likelihood of an accident or careless / negligent killing

No it is not , but in order to drive one legally , you have to take a course and pass a drivers exam .

No arguments here , although I’m not sure about mandatory death penalty for ALL gun related injuries — deaths maybe but injuries ? Maybe , IDK but I’d let the judge have some discretion there , I. Care of extenuating circumstances

I think that cost wise , the purchase of the hand gun itself presents more of a economic barrier than the hand gun safety course. Come on, If she can afford the gun , she caN Afford the course !!

A gun is far different Than a chainsaw as , although it’s not impossible for murders to occur that way, it’s far less likely . Do you believe that you need to take a course in order to operate a motor vehicle ? I think it’s analogous to purchasing — and using — a handgun.

I respectfully disagree; can you explain why ? When if a single woman who’s girlfriend just experienced a home invasion and wanted to purchase a handgun for protection ; however , she knows absolutely NOTHING about firearms , hasn’t even held a gun in her life . Despite this , her record is clean and she has the cash so she is eligible to purchase one . You think that she should be able to without taking a safety course?

No I am saying you should understand the basics. I don't mean this as a deep dig but based on your understanding of "assualt rifles" and what an AR actually is you don't. And since you don't and you want to discuss the point you shoul Perhaps you’re right about this , but’s it’s not like we’re passing legislation here ourselves , making any impactful decisions ; after all , it’s just a discussion forum , correct ? And the purpose of a discussion forum— I think— is to share ideas , thoughts , and well , learn something new isn’t it ? And I’m learning !! I don’t think it needs to be taken That seriously consequently and think anyone who want to can join and offer an opinion .

Forgot something: Based on this part of your reply, are you saying that youre against requiring a handgun safety course in order to purchase a handgun?

Wait: Are you saing that I cant have an opinion unless I'm an expert? Thats a little extreme dont you think? If thats the case, then almost NONE of us should have an opinion on anything pertaining to governent regs/laws because very few of us are experts--are you? I dont think I called for a ban on AR's, I'm just saying that I think its reasonable that theyre sale/ownership and distribution is regulated a bit more fastidiously than say, a rifle or a shotgun. As for the minutiae pertaining to what contitutes an AR, that is up to the "Experts". If-- by your example-- said experts decided that Grandpas 740 30-06 would be included in the designation as an "AR", then I would be against that, certainly.

All 3 of your points are valid ; let me reply: 1. Recreational use- Correct, the 2nd has NOTHING to do with recreation use which, in contemporary times, pretty much includes use for hunting and targetshooting -- perhaps theres another use that I'm not thinking of but I cant think of anything else that would contititute "recreational" use . To the Founding Fathers, using firearms for hunting and shooting was a given --kind of like... "duh!" of course you can have guns to hunt!-- so they didnt even bother to introduce language into the 2nd to secure its protection. 2. You raise a good point; I have no problem w/ that . 3. I honmestly dont know what an AR is and need to educate myself in this area of the gun control debate. Are you saying that an AR is not automatic , then?

No arguments here, but from the perspective of a law abiding red-neck country boy like me, I just cant imagine where the hell they would go to buy a gun illegally! I mean, if I was a scumbag, and wanted to get a gun for nefarious purposes , where would I go? If I couldnt purchase one illegally due to my past and/or psycholigical state, I would say the current gun laws would work very well in terms of preventing me from getting one. I wouldnt know where to get one otherwise; so how do all these other people get them illegally? They cant all be stolen from legal registered gun owners right?