Is There such a thing as a "Reasonable Gun Law?"

[left field]

There should be a required course to use a chainsaw as they are dangerous as hell. 

Anecdotally, last year at this time in the big panic I stopped off at a gun shop upstate. This is a sleepy little shop where I'm usually the only customer. It was filled with people lining up to buy guns. Many first timers. There was one woman who held a shotgun and asked her boyfriend, "Is this a good one? Will it stop someone."

A guy and I at the end of the line looked at each other and left.

Kind of wish she had to take a course or two.

I'm not sure what the effect of increasing penalties will have on shootings. If criminals don't adhere to gun laws now, why would they under the threat of more severe repercussions?

[Culvercreek hunt club]

2 minutes ago, left field said:

I'm not sure what the effect of increasing penalties will have on shootings. If criminals don't adhere to gun laws now, why would they under the threat of more severe repercussions?

if we start sending them to the chair in quicker fashion they won't be there to offend again. In hard contrast to NY and national catch and release. 

[ApexerER]

3 hours ago, Northcountryman said:

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?

I get what you are saying. My answer to that is you aren't a scumbag. That's why. I have no idea where to buy crack or heroine etc. But i am pretty sure it is readily available if you know where to go.....I assume illegal guns are the same sort of deal.....

[Buckmaster7600]

There should be a required course to use a chainsaw as they are dangerous as hell. 
Anecdotally, last year at this time in the big panic I stopped off at a gun shop upstate. This is a sleepy little shop where I'm usually the only customer. It was filled with people lining up to buy guns. Many first timers. There was one woman who held a shotgun and asked her boyfriend, "Is this a good one? Will it stop someone."
A guy and I at the end of the line looked at each other and left.
Kind of wish she had to take a course or two.
I'm not sure what the effect of increasing penalties will have on shootings. If criminals don't adhere to gun laws now, why would they under the threat of more severe repercussions?

There’s a big difference between a firearm and a chainsaw. A chainsaw can hurt you if you’re doing everything correct, a gun cannot.

Every new gun I’ve purchased for as long as I can remember has came with a red and white card with the 4 firearm safety rules. If you follow them a firearm is as safe a the tv on your wall.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Northcountryman]

57 minutes ago, Buckmaster7600 said:

So you think a class will prevent a murder?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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

[Northcountryman]

52 minutes ago, Culvercreek hunt club said:

if we start sending them to the chair in quicker fashion they won't be there to offend again. In hard contrast to NY and national catch and release. 

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 

[Northcountryman]

39 minutes ago, ApexerER said:

I get what you are saying. My answer to that is you aren't a scumbag. That's why. I have no idea where to buy crack or heroine etc. But i am pretty sure it is readily available if you know where to go.....I assume illegal guns are the same sort of deal.....

Good point , no doubt 

[Northcountryman]

59 minutes ago, left field said:

 

There should be a required course to use a chainsaw as they are dangerous as hell. 

 

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

[Buckmaster7600]

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 

You tried killing him but you can’t shoot so you’ll get a lesser punishment?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Northcountryman]

18 minutes ago, Buckmaster7600 said:

You tried killing him but you can’t shoot so you’ll get a lesser punishment?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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. 

 

[Buckmaster7600]

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. 
 

He said while in commission of a crime, if you’re doing a drive by and miss your intended target but him a kid in the next house over “negligent homicide” hell yes you should be killed!

If you’re cleaning your gun and don’t follow safety rules and shoot through your apartment wall and into the neighbor your weren’t commissioning a crime therefore death penalty wouldn’t be applicable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Northcountryman]

13 minutes ago, Buckmaster7600 said:

He said while in commission of a crime, if you’re doing a drive by and miss your intended target but him a kid in the next house over “negligent homicide” hell yes you should be killed!

If you’re cleaning your gun and don’t follow safety rules and shoot through your apartment wall and into the neighbor your weren’t commissioning a crime therefore death penalty wouldn’t be applicable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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.

[Buckmaster7600]

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 disagree, if you fire a round while committing a crime you should be killed. If a judge lets that individual out and they kill someone the judge should also be held responsible for the crime the individual commits.

The problem with this country is a lack of being held responsible.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Northcountryman]

1 minute ago, Buckmaster7600 said:

I disagree, if you fire a round while committing a crime you should be killed. If a judge lets that individual out and they kill someone the judge should also be held responsible for the crime the individual commits.

The problem with this country is a lack of being held responsible.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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. 

[Culvercreek hunt club]

1 hour ago, Northcountryman said:

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

There are counties in NY that require it and ones that do not. I have never seen any data that showed that lack of a course raised the numbers of events you listed. It makes sense to me that training would help but I've seen adults that handle long guns that have "years of experience" that make me cringe. 

[Uncle Nicky]

3 hours ago, Northcountryman said:

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? 

Absolutely. I'd STRONGLY advise a first-timer to stick with a revolver that absolutely won't go off without a decent amount of pressure exerted, even if dropped. But really, a handgun is no less dangerous than a hunting rifle or shotgun, they are only looked at as more deadly because they can be carried without others knowing you have it in your possession, and statistically more people are shot at by handguns than any other type of firearm. Some people aren't bright enough to operate power tools, automobiles, or even use a kitchen knife at home, but we're not looking to ban these tools for our protection. 

[Northcountryman]

23 minutes ago, Culvercreek hunt club said:

There are counties in NY that require it and ones that do not. I have never seen any data that showed that lack of a course raised the numbers of events you listed. It makes sense to me that training would help but I've seen adults that handle long guns that have "years of experience" that make me cringe. 

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!!

[Northcountryman]

4 minutes ago, Uncle Nicky said:

Absolutely. I'd STRONGLY advise a first-timer to stick with a revolver that absolutely won't go off without a decent amount of pressure exerted, even if dropped. But really, a handgun is no less dangerous than a hunting rifle or shotgun, they are only looked at as more deadly because they can be carried without others knowing you have it in your possession, and statistically more people are shot at by handguns than any other type of firearm. Some people aren't bright enough to operate power tools, automobiles, or even use a kitchen knife at home, but we're not looking to ban these tools for our protection. 

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.

[ApexerER]

1 hour ago, Buckmaster7600 said:

I disagree, if you fire a round while committing a crime you should be killed. If a judge lets that individual out and they kill someone the judge should also be held responsible for the crime the individual commits.

The problem with this country is a lack of being held responsible.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have never really understood why attempted murder and murder are two different crimes. If you shoot at someone whether you kill them or not you are trying to murder them. 

[Culvercreek hunt club]

35 minutes ago, Northcountryman said:

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!!

I can tell you that Monroe (Rochester) doesn't require it. 

Here are some highlights. 

https://www.nyfirearms.com/threads/pistol-permit-information-by-county.2348/#post-12566

 

[Buckmaster7600]

I have never really understood why attempted murder and murder are two different crimes. If you shoot at someone whether you kill them or not you are trying to murder them. 

Exactly, punish the act not the outcome!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Northcountryman]

23 minutes ago, Buckmaster7600 said:

Exactly, punish the act not the outcome!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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.

 

[Buckmaster7600]

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.
 

I don’t feel that someone who made a conscious decision to take someone’s life not in self defense should have the ability to continue life above the top soil.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Northcountryman]

21 minutes ago, Buckmaster7600 said:

I don’t feel that someone who made a conscious decision to take someone’s life not in self defense should have the ability to continue life above the top soil.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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.

[Buckmaster7600]

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.

You and I see it differently. I’m around murders every day at work, trust me most of them should be under ground.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk