Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Northcountryman said:

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.

 

This thread is discussing infringing/modifying/restricting a Constitutional right. What you just discussed is a law. In the hierarchy of what should be preserved the Constitutional right always trumps the law. If we are discussing what is acceptable to modify in regards to the Constitution we certainly shouldn't take law modifications off the table. The law is a standard of social norms with accompanying penalties for veering outside those norms. The reason our laws are of little value as a deterrent currently is becasue they have no teeth anymore. I am going to search tomorrow but I'd bet that over 70% of those convicted of murder or attempted murder using a firearm have previous firearms crimes. Here is how you reduce the recidivism rate, don't have them breathing to commit the second gun crime. The notion that you can rehabilitate these type of criminals is crazy. They are predators and the way you stop a predator from killing is not to try and condition it to become a pet, you put it down. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Culvercreek hunt club said:

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. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Culvercreek hunt club said:

The law is a standard of social norms with accompanying penalties for veering outside those norms.

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 . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Culvercreek hunt club said:

Here is how you reduce the recidivism rate, don't have them breathing to commit the second gun crime. The notion that you can rehabilitate these type of criminals is crazy. They are predators and the way you stop a predator from killing is not to try and condition it to become a pet, you put it down.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Culvercreek hunt club said:

The reason our laws are of little value as a deterrent currently is becasue they have no teeth anymore.

None of them ? I don’t believe that . I think that, in certain cases you have a valid point but across the board — no . There’s plenty of well written laws on the books too that balance the ineffective/ foolish ones .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of them ? I don’t believe that . I think that, in certain cases you have a valid point but across the board — no . There’s plenty of well written laws on the books too that balance the ineffective/ foolish ones .

The laws and most penalties aren’t the issue. It’s the system that allows for pleas and shortened sentences.
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/26/2021 at 1:51 PM, Northcountryman said:

 

  1. Right to purchase/own and utilize rifles/shotguns and any other weapons primarily intended for recreational use/pursuits related to hunting should be unfettered.
  2. Right to purchase handguns permitted with successful completion of a basic background check and an approved handgun safety course; subsequent to this, applicant then should be eligible to receive their firearm after a reasonable waiting (i.e., cooling off) period .
  3. Right to purchase a military/assault rifle (AR-15s, and other automatic weapons that can still reasonably be considered a hunting weapon)should be permitted after successful completion of a more thorough background check and also includes a psych eval ; additionally, a longer cooling off period should be required (length and duration IDK, but longer than 3 days , I would think!!).
  4. Right to purchase anything else that can be classified as military and not included in the aforementioned points , such as bazookas, grenades, 50 cal machine guns, etc.(for want of a better term, serious military hardware) should not be allowed mostly (exemptions can apply, of course in certain situations). 

 

What do you think?

Agreed, but truth be told, I would so love to be the first kid on my block with an M1 Abrams! Would love to tell my wife I parked my newest gun in the garage. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to FBI crime reports, of the more than 100,000 gun homicides in the U.S. between 2007 and 2017, only 253 were victims of an AR-type rifle. That's about one-fourth of 1% — or one death for every 400 inflicted by guns. So let's stop talking about "assault weapons" as if they're really part of the problem.

And finally, let's start talking about the cultural crime scene whereby one race of Americans slaughters each other at a far, far higher rate than any other race or ethnic group. Let's see if we can get Democrats to stop obsessing about the 14 unarmed blacks who were fatally shot by police in 2019, and instead start talking about the 6,500-or-so blacks being murdered each year by other blacks. Unless and until we do, our nation's black-on-black genocide will continue unchecked.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Grouse said:

According to FBI crime reports, of the more than 100,000 gun homicides in the U.S. between 2007 and 2017, only 253 were victims of an AR-type rifle. That's about one-fourth of 1% — or one death for every 400 inflicted by guns. So let's stop talking about "assault weapons" as if they're really part of the problem.

And finally, let's start talking about the cultural crime scene whereby one race of Americans slaughters each other at a far, far higher rate than any other race or ethnic group. Let's see if we can get Democrats to stop obsessing about the 14 unarmed blacks who were fatally shot by police in 2019, and instead start talking about the 6,500-or-so blacks being murdered each year by other blacks. Unless and until we do, our nation's black-on-black genocide will continue unchecked.

more people are knifed to death  then killed  with rifles. ARs not a big problem .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, phantom said:

more people are knifed to death  then killed  with rifles. ARs not a big problem .

Several orders of magnitude more than that combined total are snuffed out in the US each year by abortion, before they get out of the womb.  That rate is more than double for blacks than it is for whites.  

Thankfully, Trump was able to do something about that by seating 3 pro life Supreme Court Justices during his 4 years.  Obama only got 2 pro abortion justices in during his 8 years, and let's hope Joe don't get any in any while he is up.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Several orders of magnitude more than that combined total are snuffed out in the US each year by abortion, before they get out of the womb.  That rate is more than double for blacks than it is for whites.  
Thankfully, Trump was able to do something about that by seating 3 pro life Supreme Court Justices during his 4 years.  Obama only got 2 pro abortion justices in during his 8 years, and let's hope Joe don't get any in any while he is up.

Joe should have been aborted!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I own guns because I hunt.  I am not a collector, or gun enthusiast. I don't even know if I would own a gun if I didn't hunt. I don't keep things that I don't use.

That being said I disagree with gun laws. I don't care if my neighbors own full automatic guns, cannons,  or tanks. I think a murderer is going to commit murder if they want regardless of a law just like a junkie is going to find his fix.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...