Any chance for a reasonable discussion about firearms laws? (v.2023, Dialectic Bubbaloo)

Error404 said:

Sober individuals don't drive drunk. 

Healthy individuals don't commit mass shootings/murder/violence. 

The conversation always centers around the gun because we, as a nation, steadfastly refuse to address the preventative measure of contributing to a healthy populace. The food we eat, the drugs we take, the media we consume, the work ethic we espouse... The countries that don't have mass shootings also have better approaches to a healthy populace, in general, and that's before we even get to for profit medicine and discussions over who deserves care. 

In conclusion, a healthy populace would reduce profits so that is untenable. Confiscating guns would lead to a lot of violence so that is untenable. So, what do?

Heavier punishments on gun crimes would be a good start. Like.....take a big step towards harsh and then 3 more steps.

In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :

Read several different studies on this sone time back. But here's a better idea, why don't you disprove it. You can use google as well as anyone here. 

In reply to Antihero :

There already are in almost every state. Prosecutors just aren't pushing it and they get dropped in plea deals daily. 

Antihero said:

Error404 said:

Sober individuals don't drive drunk. 

Healthy individuals don't commit mass shootings/murder/violence. 

The conversation always centers around the gun because we, as a nation, steadfastly refuse to address the preventative measure of contributing to a healthy populace. The food we eat, the drugs we take, the media we consume, the work ethic we espouse... The countries that don't have mass shootings also have better approaches to a healthy populace, in general, and that's before we even get to for profit medicine and discussions over who deserves care. 

In conclusion, a healthy populace would reduce profits so that is untenable. Confiscating guns would lead to a lot of violence so that is untenable. So, what do?

Heavier punishments on gun crimes would be a good start. Like.....take a big step towards harsh and then 3 more steps.

Why does it have to start with more punishment when we already have laws on the books? Why couldn't we say that improving Quality of Life (generalizing a bit here for brevity) is a good place to continue? The behavior is already criminalized and we're lacking when it comes to prevention. 

My personal opinion is that addressing the causes rather than the effects would be less profitable and that is the 'why' which is why the fires of division are stoked so enthusiastically, else the populace might look at France and start getting more ideas. Profit over people. 

In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :

ToManyProjects said:

We should make killing innocent people illegal.

It's already illegal and it's always been immoral too.  No one actually cares to address that though which is why we always blame the objects used to kill not the actual evil people doing the killing.  
 

This thread like most here that are not about cars is political theatre.  Enjoy the show.
 

It's not just this thread. This topic is nothing but political theater for those in power. Most are happy with the compromises that we are currently at, on both sides. They understand that barring a constitutional amendment, as Toyman pointed out, no significant changes to gun laws are going to take place. And that's not going to happen. Both sides know this, and use the theater to drum up support. Most who proclaim "we are going to take away their guns" or "they are going to take away your guns" don't actually believe it. They don't want to upset the current equilibrium, and are satisfied with nibbling at the edges for political "wins" that will have little real word effect. It's the ignorant minority that push the hardest. They don't understand the house of cards that the current compromises are built on, and their actions threaten to topple the whole thing. If they were really serious about trying to reduce gun violence, they would focus more on the violence than the guns. Mental health and crime being the elephants in the room. 

Circling back to the topic of "Change the Constitution" - the problem I have with that response is that our politics are getting increasingly dirty in an effort to create minority representative rule. 

I have no doubt, that if put to a nationwide popular vote, that more Americans would support changing the 2nd Amendment than would protect it in its current form. 

But in our current style of gerrymandered representative government it'd never happen. 

The reason the gun laws of the 30's were successful is that your average gun owner, perhaps with a hunting rifle, felt threatened by gangsters with submachine guns. Most people didn't have any way of protecting themselves against such firepower, and in cities, didn't want to get caught in the crossfire. I don't think guns were seen as home security for most urban/suburban folks until the 70's. Today, every Tom, Richard and Harry thinks they are going are going to have to defend their suburban home against the cartel ala some Eastwood flick. Because of this, it's not a simple as gun-control popularity filtering up though our Republican party to aid in a Constitutional Amendment. Too many Republicans would not support a Constitutional Amendment, and their representative districts are too gerrymandered as to give them outsized power at the Federal level. 

Boost_Crazy said:

If they were really serious about trying to reduce gun violence, they would focus more on the violence than the guns. Mental health and crime being the elephants in the room. 

I would gladly take socialized medicine and more funding to schools and communities to prevent violence over gun control, but that won't happen either. 

Only think people care more about than their guns is their taxes. 

bobzilla said:

In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :

Read several different studies on this sone time back. But here's a better idea, why don't you disprove it. You can use google as well as anyone here. 

I did look it up, and I did disprove it- most of that is due to prison overcrowding:

Paper 1: "an overcrowded system only intensifies recidivism rates." 

A news article of many showing they caught and released nonviolent offenders due to overcrowding.

The state of Connecticut has this paper on what causes prison overcrowding, directly naming things like harsher penalties and the War on Drugs as being key reasons on the first page.

So harsher sentencing is a nonstarter, we've been doing that crap for decades.

In reply to Error404 :

Why does it have to start with more punishment when we already have laws on the books? Why couldn't we say that improving Quality of Life (generalizing a bit here for brevity) is a good place to continue? The behavior is already criminalized and we're lacking when it comes to prevention. 

My personal opinion is that addressing the causes rather than the effects would be less profitable and that is the 'why' which is why the fires of division are stoked so enthusiastically, else the populace might look at France and start getting more ideas. Profit over people. 

Gun violence has increased out of step with quality of life increases. I know there are plenty of studies showing quality of life has decreased, but- they are wrong. Nothing but creative math and definition changes, because division causes more political opportunity. Look around you at the average person, and tell me honestly that quality of life has dropped vs. decades with lower gun violence. That's also assuming that we don't have cause and effect backwards. While it's possible that a low standard of living could drive a person to violence, I'd say that a person who solves their problems with violence is more likely to make choices that result in a lower standard of living. 
 

pheller said:

Boost_Crazy said:

If they were really serious about trying to reduce gun violence, they would focus more on the violence than the guns. Mental health and crime being the elephants in the room. 

I would gladly take socialized medicine and more funding to schools and communities to prevent violence over gun control, but that won't happen either. 

Only think people care more about than their guns is their taxes. 

Hey it won't happen with THAT attitude ! There's a lot of rich people with very vested interests in keeping everything the way it is, and they spend millions to make you think it's not possible- shame if you did the opposite and wasted all that money and effort!

GIRTHQUAKE said:

bobzilla said:

In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :

Read several different studies on this sone time back. But here's a better idea, why don't you disprove it. You can use google as well as anyone here. 

I did look it up, and I did disprove it- most of that is due to prison overcrowding:

Paper 1: "an overcrowded system only intensifies recidivism rates." 

A news article of many showing they caught and released nonviolent offenders due to overcrowding.

The state of Connecticut has this paper on what causes prison overcrowding, directly naming things like harsher penalties and the War on Drugs as being key reasons on the first page.

So harsher sentencing is a nonstarter, we've been doing that crap for decades.

Too bad you cherry picked what I stated, but hey I wouldn't expect anything less. It's long been known that non-violent crime prison sentences have been overly harsh. The "war on drugs" created a E36 M3 ton of it. I'd rather non-violent criminals were out on work release, paying off their crimes to society. 

VIOLENT crimes is another story. FBI study from a decade ago showed that the vast percentage of violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders.

The 401,288 state prisoners released in 2005 had an estimated 1,994,000 arrests during the 9-year period,

from this study: https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/18upr9yfup0514.pdf 

Offenders sentenced for firearms and robbery offenses had the highest rearrest rates during the eight-year follow-up period, with 70.6 percent and 63.2 percent, respectively. In contrast, offenders sentenced for fraud, theft, or embezzlement had the lowest rearrest rate (35.5%).

from here: https://www.crimeinamerica.net/offender-recidivism-and-reentry-in-the-united-states/ 

Length of sentences did not alter the percentage of rearrests. More importantly:

Of those offenders who were sentenced to a term of supervision and rearrested, 76.3 percent were rearrested earlier than the expiration of their originally imposed supervision term

Had those people served their full sentence they would not have committed the crimes they were re-arrested for. 

For gang related:

• In Chicago and Los Angeles, nearly half of all homicides were attributed to gang violence from 2009-2012.5

 

from here: https://youth.gov/youth-topics/preventing-gang-involvement/federal-data 

non-fatal gang/drug shootings are hard to find good data on as well over 70% of those are never solved. For one year, boston had 540 non-fatal drug/gang related shootings, only 112 of those were solved/prosecuted. 

Boost_Crazy said:

In reply to Error404 :

Why does it have to start with more punishment when we already have laws on the books? Why couldn't we say that improving Quality of Life (generalizing a bit here for brevity) is a good place to continue? The behavior is already criminalized and we're lacking when it comes to prevention. 

My personal opinion is that addressing the causes rather than the effects would be less profitable and that is the 'why' which is why the fires of division are stoked so enthusiastically, else the populace might look at France and start getting more ideas. Profit over people. 

Gun violence has increased out of step with quality of life increases. I know there are plenty of studies showing quality of life has decreased, but- they are wrong. Nothing but creative math and definition changes, because division causes more political opportunity. Look around you at the average person, and tell me honestly that quality of life has dropped vs. decades with lower gun violence. That's also assuming that we don't have cause and effect backwards. While it's possible that a low standard of living could drive a person to violence, I'd say that a person who solves their problems with violence is more likely to make choices that result in a lower standard of living. 
 

 

So it's an innate quality of a person, something genetic mayhaps, that dictates who is likely to break the rules? That would make sense, then we just need to weed out the undesirables and we have ourselves a final solution. 

We have children going hungry at school because their parents can't afford to pay for meals. Now I know there's been a push to get those kids back into the packing plants but can you see how the preventable hunger of children might be a reduction in QoL? The working homeless that couldn't afford the latest round of rent hike? The vets who struggled for how many years to get their conditions, caused by burn pit exposure, covered by the govt? Congested cities navigable only by car or rural areas where Dollar Tree is the grocer because they drove the grocer under? The person rationing their medication? 

We, as a nation, have put profit over people and it has definitely lead to decreased QoL for many people, creating situations where people feel desperate and under ever greater stress. Stress that can manifest as illness, both physical and mental. Or maybe those hungry kids should stop making poor choices, maybe get on down to the quarry and mine some bootstraps. 

In reply to Error404 :

+1 Thank you Error, I couldn't have explained it better for reasons for gun crime.

bobzilla said:

In reply to Antihero :

There already are in almost every state. Prosecutors just aren't pushing it and they get dropped in plea deals daily. 

True, and that's a lot of it.

So harsher punishment and actual punishment is needed. Awhile back I read a news article about a guy that shot at his neighbor but didn't hit him. He's a felon, can't own guns and gas gotten into trouble for roughly the same thing on 4 different occasions.

He got 2 weeks. Imagine if he actually wasn't out in the general population after the first time, that would make life better for everyone around .

bobzilla said:

 

Too bad you cherry picked what I stated, but hey I wouldn't expect anything less.

Just because some evidence disagrees with you doesn't mean it's fake- It was also needed to make you post proof. 

[links clipped for brevity] -Girth

Okay, but seriously how is any of this related to catch-and-release? I asked for proof because you claimed "and in most cases being perpetrated by repeat offenders that have benefited from the catch and release programs" which my links clearly showed states are doing due to overcrowding in jails. Heck, one of them even stated that overcrowding made recidivism worse because of the mental strain it imposes.

Also this is getting away from the central point of discussing firearms laws. Glass house comment I know.

In reply to Antihero :

I'm fine with holding prosecutors responsible for releasing multi-time violent felons and they commit another violent crime. financially responsible or removal from office.

Error404 said:

Antihero said:

Error404 said:

Sober individuals don't drive drunk. 

Healthy individuals don't commit mass shootings/murder/violence. 

The conversation always centers around the gun because we, as a nation, steadfastly refuse to address the preventative measure of contributing to a healthy populace. The food we eat, the drugs we take, the media we consume, the work ethic we espouse... The countries that don't have mass shootings also have better approaches to a healthy populace, in general, and that's before we even get to for profit medicine and discussions over who deserves care. 

In conclusion, a healthy populace would reduce profits so that is untenable. Confiscating guns would lead to a lot of violence so that is untenable. So, what do?

Heavier punishments on gun crimes would be a good start. Like.....take a big step towards harsh and then 3 more steps.

Why does it have to start with more punishment when we already have laws on the books? Why couldn't we say that improving Quality of Life (generalizing a bit here for brevity) is a good place to continue? The behavior is already criminalized and we're lacking when it comes to prevention. 

My personal opinion is that addressing the causes rather than the effects would be less profitable and that is the 'why' which is why the fires of division are stoked so enthusiastically, else the populace might look at France and start getting more ideas. Profit over people. 

People only really do something they don't want to do by stick or carrot. They Stick path punishes those that have actually done wrong as it should be.

The Carrot path would be great too, too many people have zero hope and no quality of life. That's a huge issue too , but a little less than actually reinforcing the rules that we have as a society 

In reply to Antihero :

Stop electing prosecutors that aren't willing to request maximum sentences and do the work to make them happen. Stop electing judges who are soft on violent crime. Stop electing government officials who appoint judges that are soft on violent crime. 

All of this is controlled by your votes. The entire judicial system is either elected by citizens, elected by legislators or appointed by the people you vote for. 

Toyman! said:

In reply to Antihero :

Stop electing prosecutors that aren't willing to request maximum sentences and do the work to make them happen. Stop electing judges who are soft on violent crime. Stop electing government officials who appoint judges that are soft on violent crime. 

"Tough on crime" is great for bumper sticker politics but we've been doing that for 30+ years. Look where it's got us.

Toyman! said:

In reply to Antihero :

Stop electing prosecutors that aren't willing to request maximum sentences and do the work to make them happen. Stop electing judges who are soft on violent crime. Stop electing government officials who appoint judges that are soft on violent crime. 

All of this is controlled by your votes. The entire judicial system is either elected by citizens, elected by legislators or appointed by the people you vote for. 

So I'm gonna stop replying after this and get out of this trash fire of a thread but this right here is the exact reason why debates here, and everywhere else about this subject doesn't work. It's too emotional of a subject for anyone to make any progress on.

To answer your rant though: I do vote every time and do vote exactly as you say. I think it bears mentioning here that I not only own guns, I live in a place that's the most gun friendly area ever. I literally have bought guns at the yearly gun show inside junior high. Im very pro gun because guns to me equal self sufficiency, and self sufficiency is good.

None of these threads or discussions will work until we get rid of the hand wringing on all sides. 

In reply to Error404 :

So it's an innate quality of a person, something genetic mayhaps, that dictates who is likely to break the rules? That would make sense, then we just need to weed out the undesirables and we have ourselves a final solution. 
 

Wow, that's a stretch of monumental proportions. Care to share how you made that leap? 

We have children going hungry at school because their parents can't afford to pay for meals. Now I know there's been a push to get those kids back into the packing plants but can you see how the preventable hunger of children might be a reduction in QoL? The working homeless that couldn't afford the latest round of rent hike? The vets who struggled for how many years to get their conditions, caused by burn pit exposure, covered by the govt? Congested cities navigable only by car or rural areas where Dollar Tree is the grocer because they drove the grocer under? The person rationing their medication? 

No, we don't have children going hungry at school. Pretty much every school district in the nation has programs to feed hungry children. I'd also argue that the number of parents actually unable to afford to send their kid to school with a sandwich is minuscule. Despite that, California schools provide breakfast and lunch for every student...

Update of State Meal Mandate

Commencing in SY 2022–23, Education Code (EC) 49501.5 requires public school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools serving students in grades transitional kindergarten through grade 12 (TK–12) to provide two meals free of charge (breakfast and lunch) during each school day to students requesting a meal, regardless of their free or reduced-price meal eligibility.

They also provide meals on non school days. CA throws away enough food every day to feed every truly hungry child in the nation many times over. 

Working homeless? What percentage of people are working homeless? How can you determine average quality of life based on statistical anomalies like the working homeless? All of your examples added together are statistically insignificant, and are not new phenomenon. They existed in the past, so can't be a significant factor in QOL comparisons. 

We, as a nation, have put profit over people is it has definitely lead to decreased QoL for many people, creating situations where people feel desperate and under ever greater stress. Stress that can manifest as illness, both physical and mental. Or maybe those hungry kids should stop making poor choices, maybe get on down to the quarry and mine some bootstraps. 
 

Again, confusing corelation with causation. Stress is not unique to poverty. It's about perspective. Division causes stress and desperation. Your message causes the very stress and desperation that you are trying to fix. Telling people that their situation is a result of unfairness and others peoples' greed just increases the stress and desperation, and doesn't fix anything. There is zero chance that it makes anyone happier. It does harm by justifying the actions that put them in the situation, or dissuades them from taking  actions that would improve their situation. Any solution that does not involve personal responsibility is not a solution. 
 

You also appear to be focused on the quality of life difference between the successful and poor vs. the actual quality of life. The truth is both have increased, but you are unhappy because the gap still exists. Tell me that the quality of life for a poor person was better in past decades than it is today. 

In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :

It got you the war on drugs and the war on speeding because that's where the money is in police work. This is directly due to the federal government spreading around money they don't have, to control and coerce local police departments, to do what they want.

Take that money from the feds and control it locally and you will have the police department you want and vote for instead of the police department whichever swinging dick in control in Washington wants you to have. 

 That has to be backed up by a prosecutor that will do what you elected them for as well as a judge that will do what you elect them for. 

This is why a powerful central government is a bad thing. You can't influence it, control it, or even significantly change it. For that you need a weak national government and a powerful state and local government. Which is the entire point of the Constitution. 

And with that, I'm out.  I've had a hankering for a scary weapon chambered in something 1/2". I doubt I can swing a Barret but a Desert Eagle in 50AE might do the trick. I think I'll go see if Palmetto State has one in stock. 

On the subject of crime and punishment, just look at Oakland and San Francisco  if you want to see the downside to under enforcement of laws. I've lived in Oakland for the last 30 years btw.

There's a correlation between America being the most violent first-world country and having the most violent prisons. Think about it. Most criminals come from messed up families and environments. So what do we do? Put them in even worse places (OK, I'm generalizing, but the overall point holds). It doesn't make sense to expect people who have been locked up with the dregs to turn upstanding. Even if they have a strong desire to do so, how many people hire recently released felons? Assuming that they even have marketable skills at all? 

What's the solution? I dunno. Perhaps as an employer with a blue-collar business, I can start trying to bring in ex-cons. Little steps.   

In reply to Kreb (Forum Supporter) :

non-violent felons I think could be helped more in a work release type system that keeps them from jail but still serving a sentence for their crime.

To take a step further, we could legalize recreational drugs, release those minor offenses like possession etc (again, non-violent). This would free up room for the people that have proven they cannot be released to society without causing further harm. VIOLENT felons should not be released. 

In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :

70-80% getting re-arrested isn't good enough for you? I guess there's nothing I can provide you. 

Local LEO's are frustrated because they have arrested the same person twice in the same day for the same aggravated assault. To the point they haven't even been able to finish their internal reports on the arrest before needing to write a second. They see the same crimes repeated over and over by the same people that are released over and over. Where does that stop?