Yet another school shooting.

[illinifan999]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Hah. Yeah, well guess everyone should just trust, and fire all their security guards.

So war on guns?

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by illinifan999

How dare he expect people to follow the law.

Do you lock your doors at night? How about your windows?

[cuervo72]

I mean, if the logic is that you believe a car is secure because he should expect people to follow the law, then the logic would also suggest that banks (stores, whatever) should expect people to also follow the law and not have security.

Or that in the same instance, he should consider his locked house secure and not require a gun to protect it. If you believe that you need a gun to secure your house - which many do - then you shouldn't hold the belief that your car is secure (unless you are in it with said gun, or watching it 24/7).

In any event, Beto did not to my knowledge say that you couldn't have a gun to protect your home (or car). Just that you don't need an AK-47 or an AR-15 to do so.

[illinifan999]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Just that you don't need an AK-47 or an AR-15 to do so.

Why though? If a bad guy can obtain that weapon (which they can), that puts him/her at a significant advantage over me.

Edit: Added the /her.

[illinifan999]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Do you lock your doors at night? How about your windows?

I do, because I know that people don't follow the law. Just like how I know that people are emboldened to break the law against soft targets versus hard targets.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Do you lock your doors at night? How about your windows?

No but I wear my sunglasses...

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by illinifan999

Why though? If a bad guy can obtain that weapon (which they can), that puts him/her at a significant advantage over me.

Edit: Added the /her.

My guess is you share the same fundamental belief that Beto does, that there are some weapons too dangerous for civilians to own. You can disagree with where Beto wants to draw the line, but you probably aren't "pure" when it comes to the 2nd amendment either.

[illinifan999]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

My guess is you share the same fundamental belief that Beto does, that there are some weapons too dangerous for civilians to own. You can disagree with where Beto wants to draw the line, but you probably aren't "pure" when it comes to the 2nd amendment either.

Maybe, maybe not. I don't find an issue with a non-felon owning an AR. But as someone who has first hand knowledge of actual gun crime, I know that gun control is going to suffer from the same arguments as the "war on drugs".

[JPhillips]

We've had gun control since the early 20th century. Why is it hard to get a machine gun? A RPG? A shoulder mounted missile launcher? It would take time, but a ban and buy-back option would make it harder to get these guns, and over time there would be fewer in circulation.

[illinifan999]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

We've had gun control since the early 20th century. Why is it hard to get a machine gun? A RPG? A shoulder mounted missile launcher? It would take time, but a ban and buy-back option would make it harder to get these guns, and over time there would be fewer in circulation.

Again, are you okay with a "war on guns" knowing that it is going to result in a replica of the "war on drugs"?

[JPhillips]

War on guns, lol. We've had a ban on assault weapons before and I don't recall a war.

But drugs and guns are different because of how they are produced. Anyone can grow weed. Lots of people can make meth. Cocaine is pretty easy to make and ship. Guns, though, require manufacturers and those manufacturers aren't going to risk their business and their freedom to make a banned gun.

We have evidence of what will happen. We have banned guns now. We have evidence of what happens with an assault weapon ban. We don't have to rely on worst case scenarios.

[illinifan999]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

War on guns, lol. We've had a ban on assault weapons before and I don't recall a war.

But drugs and guns are different because of how they are produced. Anyone can grow weed. Lots of people can make meth. Cocaine is pretty easy to make and ship. Guns, though, require manufacturers and those manufacturers aren't going to risk their business and their freedom to make a banned gun.

We have evidence of what will happen. We have banned guns now. We have evidence of what happens with an assault weapon ban. We don't have to rely on worst case scenarios.

It's a noble idea, but sadly you aren't realizing that increased gun control = increased gun laws = increased people incarcerated = what communities are most affected by gun violence?

Edit: And then we lead into the "war on drugs" argument.

[JPhillips]

I'm not willing to say we can't make things better.

[illinifan999]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'm not willing to say we can't make things better.

Then how?

If you support increased laws, you have to accept increased punishments for those laws in order for those laws to be effective.

[JPhillips]

The nineties assault weapon ban didn't result in tons of minorities jail sentences. I wouldn't ban previous ownership, so anybody going to jail would be a manufacturer or a seller. Universal background checks also wouldn't result in lots of new jail sentences. Banning high capacity magazines, the same. There's a lot that can be done.

[illinifan999]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The nineties assault weapon ban didn't result in tons of minorities jail sentences. I wouldn't ban previous ownership, so anybody going to jail would be a manufacturer or a seller. Universal background checks also wouldn't result in lots of new jail sentences. Banning high capacity magazines, the same. There's a lot that can be done.

So now manufacturers are responsible for Chicago gang violence and not the gangs?

[thesloppy]

Increased gun laws does not necessarily mean increased incarceration. Those punishments could be financial or in the forms of public service or the loss of further firearm rights, if you wanted to get creative.

[illinifan999]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

Increased gun laws does not necessarily mean increased incarceration. Those punishments could be financial or in the forms of public service or the loss of further firearm rights, if you wanted to get creative.

So John who lives in an impoverished community within Chicago is convicted of a gun crime. He cannot afford to pay the fine, are you sending him to jail for not paying the fine? He obtained the firearm despite not being able to legally obtain the firearm, so how exactly do you take away his "further firearm rights"?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by illinifan999

So now manufacturers are responsible for Chicago gang violence and not the gangs?

I would assume the current laws against gun violence would still be in effect.

There's no answer that's going to satisfy you, so why do you keep pretending there is?

[illinifan999]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I would assume the current laws against gun violence would still be in effect.

There's no answer that's going to satisfy you, so why do you keep pretending there is?

Because I'm genuinely curious of a proposed action instead of "WE NEED GUN CONTROL" that is cognizant of the ramifications of increased gun control.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by illinifan999

Because I'm genuinely curious of a proposed action instead of "WE NEED GUN CONTROL" that is cognizant of the ramifications of increased gun control.

I'm pretty sure that diagamma outlined this a bunch of pages back. It was rather clear, and unambiguous.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by illinifan999

Because I'm genuinely curious of a proposed action instead of "WE NEED GUN CONTROL" that is cognizant of the ramifications of increased gun control.

But you aren't listening to any ideas, you've made up your mind and are attacking any ideas with unrelated arguments.

[illinifan999]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

I'm pretty sure that diagamma outlined this a bunch of pages back. It was rather clear, and unambiguous.

More laws = more arrests = more convictions = more incarcerations. Are you okay with, yes or no?

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by illinifan999

Because I'm genuinely curious of a proposed action instead of "WE NEED GUN CONTROL" that is cognizant of the ramifications of increased gun control.

Do you realize you are doing the same thing by saying "GUN CONTROL WILL ONLY MAKE THINGS WORSE" never mind the fact it works in every other developed nation.

Why is it so hard to admit majority of people against gun control just don't want their toys taken away and if it costs some innocent kids their lives so be it.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by illinifan999

So John who lives in an impoverished community within Chicago is convicted of a gun crime. He cannot afford to pay the fine, are you sending him to jail for not paying the fine? He obtained the firearm despite not being able to legally obtain the firearm, so how exactly do you take away his "further firearm rights"?

Sentence him to community service and cleaning up highways for 100 hours. If he gets caught with a gun again that time quadruples.

What exact point are you trying to make here? Sure you can invent individual black people that are going to get caught up on your hypothetical war on fire arms all day long, but the war on drugs affected black people disproportionately because it singled out crack cocaine for tougher sentences, and black people were disproportionately using crack cocaine because it was significantly cheaper than flake cocaine. Urban gang members certainly carry and use guns, but violent gun USE is already illegal, the majority of gun POSESSORS are disproportionately white rural males and assault rifles aren't cheap.

[illinifan999]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But you aren't listening to any ideas, you've made up your mind and are attacking any ideas with unrelated arguments.

How? Show me an idea about gun control that doesn't involve creating a law?

[molson]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

Sentence him to community service and cleaning up highways for 100 hours. If he gets caught with a gun again that time quadruples.

Partial tangent to the gun control debate, but what should be able to do when they don't show up for community service (or other requirements of probation), which occurs very often? Because the media is currently telling me this is a "technical" probation violation and we're evil for revoking probation over it.

Any condition/punishment short of incarceration ultimately increases incarceration rates because those types of sentences are imposed so freely by courts that we end up with people serving long jail sentences for relatively minor crimes because they couldn't handle probation. Some judges have recognized this and even 3rd or 4th violations of probation just result in reinstating the probation term. Which basically makes the probation conditions optional.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by molson

Partial tangent to the gun control debate, but what should be able to do when they don't show up for community service (or other requirements of probation), which occurs very often? Because the media is currently telling me this is a "technical" probation violation and we're evil for revoking probation over it.

Any condition/punishment short of incarceration ultimately increases incarceration rates because those types of sentences are imposed so freely by courts that we end up people serving long jail sentences for relatively minor crimes because they couldn't handle probation.

Yeah, I mean it's a slippery slope, what else can you say? Yes, at some point someone who resists all other forms of punishment has to end up in jail, and our current prison state ensure that significant cost will be passed on to the tax payer and that person will likely come out a worse criminal they went in.

All we can really do is try to fix those things one incremental step at a time.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by illinifan999

More laws = more arrests = more convictions = more incarcerations. Are you okay with, yes or no?

Originally Posted by illinifan999

How? Show me an idea about gun control that doesn't involve creating a law?

We really ought to be more focused on the selling of illegal cigarettes.



I mean, if you're hung up on not making laws, then you're abdicating a societal responsibility. You cannot have a functional society of any real large size without them, and if you don't have them, how long can you make things work without them? So simply saying we can't have more in order for this to work is like chopping fingers off your hand. Sure you can still do stuff, but you're making it increasingly difficult the longer you go.

[illinifan999]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

We really ought to be more focused on the selling of illegal cigarettes.



I mean, if you're hung up on not making laws, then you're abdicating a societal responsibility. You cannot have a functional society of any real large size without them, and if you don't have them, how long can you make things work without them? So simply saying we can't have more in order for this to work is like chopping fingers off your hand. Sure you can still do stuff, but you're making it increasingly difficult the longer you go.

I'm okay with more laws. Are you okay with the increased incarceration of those who don't follow those laws?

[JPhillips]

Laws don't mean a major increase in incarceration. Again, we've done this. The assault weapons ban didn't result in mass incarceration. Bans on machine guns and RPGs don't result in mass incarceration.

[molson]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

Yeah, I mean it's a slippery slope, what else can you say? Yes, at some point someone who resists all other forms of punishment has to end up in jail, and our current prison state ensure that significant cost will be passed on to the tax payer and that person will likely come out a worse criminal they went in.

All we can really do is try to fix those things one incremental step at a time.

I personally think that any gun control reform has to include serious felony incarceration punishments for gun crimes.

For other kinds of less serious crimes, I kind of liked the way they did it in Alaska when I worked there - shorter jail sentences or no jail at all, and then you're done, no probation except in very specific circumstances where it makes sense. Where probation is actually a replacement for a longer sentence and the longer sentence would actually be appropriate if imposed. Fines come out of your permanent resident dividend fund if you don't pay them. Of course, the other 49 states don't have a permanent dividend fund, but, maybe in a few decades we'll have a universal income. Until then, a little secret - in most of the U.S., you don't have to pay your criminal fines or even restitution to victims if you don't care about them going to collections and getting your credit dinged.

In my state the custom is to impose the max sentence for everything, suspend it, and put people on probation. Which seems like a good deal at first, but then some very significant % of those people end up serving the max sentence because they blow off probation. Which puts prosecutors in a tough position, because it wasn't their call to impose a max sentence, but it is their responsibility to enforce the probation.

[illinifan999]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Laws don't mean a major increase in incarceration. Again, we've done this. The assault weapons ban didn't result in mass incarceration. Bans on machine guns and RPGs don't result in mass incarceration.

Gangs don't use those weapons. They use handguns and rifles.

[JPhillips]

Jesus tap dancing Christ. This is what I mean when I say you aren't listening. Yes, some laws result in incarceration, some don't. Using weed in a lot of states resulted in a jail sentence. I'm not calling for possession of an assault rifle to be a crime, so the only people facing penalties will be sellers and manufacturers. Unlike weed, these sellers and manufacturers can stay in the gun business without making/selling these particular weapons, so most of them will.

We know what will happen. We've banned these weapons before.

[illinifan999]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Jesus tap dancing Christ. This is what I mean when I say you aren't listening. Yes, some laws result in incarceration, some don't. Using weed in a lot of states resulted in a jail sentence. I'm not calling for possession of an assault rifle to be a crime, so the only people facing penalties will be sellers and manufacturers. .

So what would be the law requiring the penalty?

[JPhillips]

You can't make or sell X. Financial penalties, revocation of manufacturing/selling privileges, then jail after multiple offenses. That won't be a noticeable increase in the prison population.

[illinifan999]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

You can't make or sell X. Financial penalties, revocation of manufacturing/selling privileges, then jail after multiple offenses. That won't be a noticeable increase in the prison population.

So the complete ban of firearms is what you're advocating?

[JPhillips]

For fuck sakes. There's really no point in having a discussion with you when you won't listen. Personally, I'm for assault weapons ban, high capacity mag ban, and universal background checks. You know, like I said above.

[cuervo72]

Heck, the way corporate punishment works, nobody would even go to prison even if they did manufacture them. They'd probably pay a fine which amounted to a fraction of their profit.

[illinifan999]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

For fuck sakes. There's really no point in having a discussion with you when you won't listen. Personally, I'm for assault weapons ban, high capacity mag ban, and universal background checks. You know, like I said above.

Even though the majority of gun violence is committed using handguns? And committed by those using guns obtained illegally?

[cuervo72]

So I hate to break into this discussion with an actual shooting, but:

2 Killed, 9 Injured in Shooting at South Carolina Bar: 'A Violent Incident of Huge Magnitude'

“I know one of the questions may be, ‘Is this a mass shooting?’ And I’ll just say up front, that I don’t think all of these people were intended victims,” Faile continued. “I think most of them were at the wrong place at the wrong time. I believe it was one person targeting another and unfortunately we had ten victims that were shot.”

"I mean, yes, you were shot - but it wasn't the intention for you to be shot, so...all better?"

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by illinifan999

I'm okay with more laws. Are you okay with the increased incarceration of those who don't follow those laws?

It's not a blanket statement. The punishment needs to fit the crime. Whether that means that people go to jail for whatever crime they are found guilty of isn't really part of the issue is it?

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by illinifan999

Even though the majority of gun violence is committed using handguns? And committed by those using guns obtained illegally?

I still don't know what kind of gotcha you're trying for here. Obviously America as a whole currently values unsuspecting school children at a much higher rate than inner city gang members when it comes to gun violence. You seem desperate to somehow paint that as racism without mentioning race directly, but why?

All I'm hearing from you is "Don't complain when all the black people get locked up, because that's who *really* commits gun violence". Is that the look you're going for?

[illinifan999]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

It's not a blanket statement. The punishment needs to fit the crime. Whether that means that people go to jail for whatever crime they are found guilty of isn't really part of the issue is it?

So what is the punishment? And what is the punishment for not following the punishment?

Drugs are illegal. People still use and sell drugs. People also get very angry when people go to jail for using and selling drugs.

[illinifan999]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

I still don't know what kind of gotcha you're trying for here. Obviously America as a whole currently values unsuspecting school children at a much higher rate than inner city gang members when it comes to gun violence. You seem desperate to somehow paint that as racism without mentioning race directly, but why?

There's no gotcha, only realities of the situation.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by illinifan999

So what is the punishment? And what is the punishment for not following the punishment?

Drugs are illegal. People still use and sell drugs. People also get very angry when people go to jail for using and selling drugs.

People speed, people park illegally, why can't they be punished sufficiently enough to make them stop?

[illinifan999]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

People speed, people park illegally, why can't they be punished sufficiently enough to make them stop?

I don't disagree at all.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by illinifan999

There's no gotcha, only realities of the situation.

So now that you understand that your single point has actually been obvious to everybody else in the conversation this entire time maybe you can stop hammering at it?

[illinifan999]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

So now that you understand that your single point has actually been obvious to everybody else in the conversation this entire time maybe you can stop hammering at it?

What's that point?

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by illinifan999

I don't disagree at all.

So authoritarian strong man is your cup of tea then? Duterte for president? I don't think that if your goal is plain black and white punishment as a deterrent to crime than your own personally functioning society isn't the place most people want to live, nor do I believe that you would want to live at the bottom of that society either.



Those types typically end in some sort of revolution. See HOA's for a modern example.