- Joined
- Feb 9, 2006
- Messages
- 16,995
- Reaction score
- 0
That sounds like more than deterrence.
Precisely.
That sounds like more than deterrence.
Oh, I don’t think it should be all about deterrence, I just think it unquestionably is the driving point. Mandatory minimum sentences are evidence of this, for example. There are other factors at play, sure, but deterrence is at the center of it all. It doesn’t really make sense because of rates of recidivism, like clearly it isn’t deterring people. Interesting take though.
I’m personally the other end of the spectrum, more of a retributivist. I believe in a “punishment that fits the crime” kind of approach. You get what you deserve, nothing more, nothing less. We’re very far away from that.
Even before that the purpose is to safeguard the public from individuals that would otherwise make it dangerous. The Deterrence and efficacy of making law against murder, rape, and theft rates (for instance) is only an effect in so far as the length of stay that criminal is separated from society. Hence why the most important concern asked before releasing someone on parole is whether the criminal will do it again.
That effect of law is nonsense when if comes banning possession of firearms, and going back to the original argument, why it makes no sense to pass it if the only people affected are the people typically abiding by the original laws these laws are supposedly meant to supplement.
@King in the North
I can get behind that. So many people get thrown in prison for owning a gun while on some kind of community control sanction. I couldn’t support more prison sentences for simply being in possession a weapon.
Well since an assault can be produced with anything of substantial hardness I’d say any gun fits that description.whats an assault weapon ?
By prohibited possessors or by folks who have a firearm or magazine supposedly banned in their state?
That sounds like more than deterrence.
I’m referring to prohibited possessors. Weapons under disability in my state.
Really only becomes relevant because those are the people who are going to be hit the hardest by this hypothetical legislation we’re discussing.
But likewise, if you are in possession of a prohibited weapon, and you live in a state where this crime carries prison time, then I would say the same thing.
I don't think violent felons should be able to possess them.
This law wouldn't necessarily impact them any more than their felony conviction.
Folks in states with a high capacity magazine or evil "assault" rifle ban should keep them and own them. Never turn them in.
No I agree, but you can get hit with a weapons under disability when you’re released for more than violent crimes. A lot of people serve time for a drug trafficking crime and upon release are still under some kind of surveillance. If they have a weapon it’s a new charge and back to prison. If it only applied to violent felons I wouldn’t have an issue.
I agree with your second point. I wouldn’t either.
I especially like that you specified "violent felons". Doesn't make much sense to strip someone of credit card fraud or petty theft from having their constitutionally protected rights.
That does not change the fact that the point of each law on the books is primarily to deter society from committing that crime. I don’t think anyone would argue that.
“Shall not be infringed.” See, that wasn’t difficult, was it?and what the hell does constitutionally compliant mean???
“Shall not be infringed.” See, that wasn’t difficult, was it?
Yeah but it says "regulated".... or something .
It's an interesting paradox how the 2nd Amendment simultaneously says the federal government can't infringe on the peoples' right to keep and bear, and grants it the authority to dictate the terms of our ownership and use. It's almost like using that definition of "regulate" isn't correct.