New Posts
By:
Filters
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Gun Safety Question

Judy1

Judy1

Mayor
I'm convinced that there is little chance of passing any sort of meaningful gun safety laws (at least not in my lifetime) and I would be okay with it if instead we shift the focus to heavier penalties for gun crimes.

What if we passed federal sentencing standards for gun crimes that all states have to follow, for example:

1. If you even carry a gun in the commission of a crime you get 20 years with no time off or commutations, in other words 20 years is 20 years. You permanently lose your right to have a gun.

2. If you kill or injure someone with a gun intentionally, you get life in prison, no time off, life in prison is life in prison

3. If you kill or injure someone by accident with a gun, you lose your right to have a gun.

Reasonable or not reasonable? would it work, or not, please state your reasons. Thanks
 
Judy1 said:
I'm convinced that there is little chance of passing any sort of meaningful gun safety laws (at least not in my lifetime) and I would be okay with it if instead we shift the focus to heavier penalties for gun crimes.

What if we passed federal sentencing standards for gun crimes that all states have to follow, for example:

1. If you even carry a gun in the commission of a crime you get 20 years with no time off or commutations, in other words 20 years is 20 years. You permanently lose your right to have a gun.

2. If you kill or injure someone with a gun intentionally, you get life in prison, no time off, life in prison is life in prison

3. If you kill or injure someone by accident with a gun, you lose your right to have a gun.

Reasonable or not reasonable? would it work, or not, please state your reasons. Thanks
Click to expand...


What are 'meaningful' gun safety laws, and how might they differ with what exists presently.

I think your idea of heavier penalties is good..
 
Judy1 said:
I'm convinced that there is little chance of passing any sort of meaningful gun safety laws (at least not in my lifetime) and I would be okay with it if instead we shift the focus to heavier penalties for gun crimes.

What if we passed federal sentencing standards for gun crimes that all states have to follow, for example:

1. If you even carry a gun in the commission of a crime you get 20 years with no time off or commutations, in other words 20 years is 20 years. You permanently lose your right to have a gun.

2. If you kill or injure someone with a gun intentionally, you get life in prison, no time off, life in prison is life in prison

3. If you kill or injure someone by accident with a gun, you lose your right to have a gun.

Reasonable or not reasonable? would it work, or not, please state your reasons. Thanks
Click to expand...
Those laws you propose are basically already on the books.

How about we whittle down the problem. Lets start with demonstrably violent gangs and treat them like the terrorists that they are. Use the Patriot Act and NDAA 2012 on them. How about if you are a member of such a gang just carrying a gun should be a 10 year felony regardless of prior convictions.

How about parents are made civilly and criminally responsible for their kids shooting up schools; so that they can go to jail and lose ALL their retirement money too.
 
Last edited:
I agree with the premise. Hammer people with stiffer penalties. You have the legal right to own a gun. Being responsible with that firearm is paramount.
 
Meaningful in that it could actually prevent gun crimes. I personally don't think people need to own certain types of automatic and semi automatic guns. I think we should have a licensing system for guns that is similar to cars....but the chances of that happening are pretty slim, and even if legislation was started, by the time it was finished, it'd probably be pretty weak. Unfortunately, its possible that legislation on stiff penalties could also get watered down.
 
Judy1 said:
I'm convinced that there is little chance of passing any sort of meaningful gun safety laws (at least not in my lifetime) and I would be okay with it if instead we shift the focus to heavier penalties for gun crimes.

What if we passed federal sentencing standards for gun crimes that all states have to follow, for example:

1. If you even carry a gun in the commission of a crime you get 20 years with no time off or commutations, in other words 20 years is 20 years. You permanently lose your right to have a gun.

2. If you kill or injure someone with a gun intentionally, you get life in prison, no time off, life in prison is life in prison

3. If you kill or injure someone by accident with a gun, you lose your right to have a gun.

Reasonable or not reasonable? would it work, or not, please state your reasons. Thanks
Click to expand...

Seems like you're having an issue with sentencing laws rather than gun laws. I agree that we have a problem with primarily liberal judges who can't bring themselves to sentence criminals appropriately. The way to solve that problem is to remove those judges and replace them with ones who will perform their jobs properly.
 
Judy1 said:
Meaningful in that it could actually prevent gun crimes. I personally don't think people need to own certain types of automatic and semi automatic guns. I think we should have a licensing system for guns that is similar to cars....but the chances of that happening are pretty slim, and even if legislation was started, by the time it was finished, it'd probably be pretty weak. Unfortunately, its possible that legislation on stiff penalties could also get watered down.
Click to expand...


theres a difference between a Constitutionally protected right, and a privilege granted by the state...

it seems many who use the "auto vs gun" continually miss that important distinction...
 
resident_evil said:
Those laws you propose are basically already on the book.

How about we whittle down the problem. Lets start with demonstrably violent gangs and treat them like the terrorists that they are. Use the Patriot Act and NDAA 2012 on them. How about if you are a member of such a gang just carrying a gun should be a 10 year felony regardless of prior convictions.

How about parents are made civilly and criminally responsible for their kids shooting up schools; so that they can go to jail and lose ALL their retirement money too.
Click to expand...

I know of no law on the books for mandatory prison time for crimes committed with guns, please show some examples. If they are out there, I'll bet the prison time is not that much. I'm talking STIFF penalties, like the ones I outlined above.

As for violent gangs being treated like terrorists, I'd agree to that if we can include the ultra right wing neonazi organizations and Christian rightwing antiabortionists who support shooting up the clinics.

As far as making parents civilly and criminally responsible for their kids shooting up schools, in many of these cases the kid has already shot his parents. Aside from that I'm not sure I'd support making parents responsible....I think it sets a lousy precedent for other things.
 
Judy1 said:
Meaningful in that it could actually prevent gun crimes. I personally don't think people need to own certain types of automatic and semi automatic guns. I think we should have a licensing system for guns that is similar to cars....but the chances of that happening are pretty slim, and even if legislation was started, by the time it was finished, it'd probably be pretty weak. Unfortunately, its possible that legislation on stiff penalties could also get watered down.
Click to expand...

with myriad laws on the books...some still choose to ignore them.. hence the term 'criminal', etc. Still dont see the bridge between existing laws to laws that prevent gun crimes...
 
oicu812 said:
theres a difference between a Constitutionally protected right, and a privilege granted by the state...

it seems many who use the "auto vs gun" continually miss that important distinction...
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if they miss it or intentionally try to obfuscate it to appeal to various low-information types. Either way, confusing rights with privileges seems to be endemic among our resident lefties.
 
Judy1 said:
I know of no law on the books for mandatory prison time for crimes committed with guns, please show some examples. If they are out there, I'll bet the prison time is not that much. I'm talking STIFF penalties, like the ones I outlined above.

As for violent gangs being treated like terrorists, I'd agree to that if we can include the ultra right wing neonazi organizations and Christian rightwing antiabortionists who support shooting up the clinics.

As far as making parents civilly and criminally responsible for their kids shooting up schools, in many of these cases the kid has already shot his parents. Aside from that I'm not sure I'd support making parents responsible....I think it sets a lousy precedent for other things.
Click to expand...


why do think these terrorists would be excluded?
 
oicu812 said:
the thousands of gun safety laws already on the books,,,are they not "meaningful"?

how do you get criminals [those that dont obey any law] to obey any new law?
Click to expand...
if someone uses a gun while holding up the 7 eleven, there is a fairly good chance he will get caught. take him out of circulation with mandatory prison sentence. if he kills or injures someone, he gets LIFE with no parole.
 
marvin martian said:
Seems like you're having an issue with sentencing laws rather than gun laws. I agree that we have a problem with primarily liberal judges who can't bring themselves to sentence criminals appropriately. The way to solve that problem is to remove those judges and replace them with ones who will perform their jobs properly.
Click to expand...
If there were mandatory sentencing for gun crimes, they'd have to do it.
 
oicu812 said:
theres a difference between a Constitutionally protected right, and a privilege granted by the state...

it seems many who use the "auto vs gun" continually miss that important distinction...
Click to expand...
Except that you forget that the 2nd amendment also talks about "well regulated" , your side always seems to miss that point.
 
marvin martian said:
Do you understand that no law can prevent a crime? Laws serve as a means to punish those who break them. They are not any form of deterrent, especially among the criminal types.
Click to expand...
yes, I get that....that is why I think the focus might need to change to extremely stiff penalties. The question is, would THAT work?
 
Judy1 said:
if someone uses a gun while holding up the 7 eleven, there is a fairly good chance he will get caught. take him out of circulation with mandatory prison sentence. if he kills or injures someone, he gets LIFE with no parole.
Click to expand...


there already are mandatory gun crime sentences,,both state and federal...

TRAILS determine guilt, JUDGES/JURIES render sentences...based on the facts/nuances of each case individually...

judges deplore mandatory sentencing for the reasons i outlined above...

whats the answer?
beats me.

we are a violent species,,the only one capable of killing from a distance...

shouldnt we celebrate our uniqueness?
 
PhilFish said:
with myriad laws on the books...some still choose to ignore them.. hence the term 'criminal', etc. Still dont see the bridge between existing laws to laws that prevent gun crimes...
Click to expand...
I'm not necessarily suggesting that there is one, there might be, but the gun lobby will see to it that it doesn't pass, so we will likely never know. I'm willing to see if extremely strict penalties would curb the gun violence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top