Whats going on in Chicago?

[BrianFantana]

And how many of those that commit these acts used a gun they could not legally have in the first place?

I'm going to bet the number is very one sided.

So again what we need is more criminal control not more gun control.

This is sort of a self-defeating proposition because most guns in circulation were purchased legally. Then, they change hands, either through theft, private sale, gift, whatever. Without a consistent federal registry that tracks gun handover, and doesn't put any onus on gun owners to register any change in ownership, there's no way to follow the path a gun takes.

Meanwhile, "criminal control" has been entirely ineffective in stemming the amount of gun violence. Beyond that, it's waaaaaaaaaay more expensive.

 

[oldshadow]

This is sort of a self-defeating proposition because most guns in circulation were purchased legally. Then, they change hands, either through theft, private sale, gift, whatever. Without a consistent federal registry that tracks gun handover, and doesn't put any onus on gun owners to register any change in ownership, there's no way to follow the path a gun takes.

Meanwhile, "criminal control" has been entirely ineffective in stemming the amount of gun violence. Beyond that, it's waaaaaaaaaay more expensive.

So first you never read the link I provided about where criminals get most of their guns. The answer is straw purchase and criminal FFL dealers, both are not legal purchases. So we go after these sources with real time for these. You can not give a gun as a gift that's a straw purchase and not legal.

Criminal control has been tried only on limited bases and on that bases it worked.


https://www.crimesolutions.gov/ProgramDetails.aspx?ID=413
Project Exile
This worked but did not go far enough in the penalty.

The cost is worth it to protect the rights of law abiding citizens. The cost can be reduced somewhat by decriminalization of simple drug possessions.


However the anti 2nd VP says we don't have time to punish law breakers when they try to buy guns.

Biden to NRA: We ‘don’t have the time’ to prosecute gun buyers who lie on background checks
CAROLINE MAY


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/18/b...e-who-lie-on-background-checks/#ixzz4UoHZjNcn

 

[BrianFantana]

So first you never read the link I provided about where criminals get most of their guns. The answer is straw purchase and criminal FFL dealers, both are not legal purchases. So we go after these sources with real time for these. You can not give a gun as a gift that's a straw purchase and not legal.

Criminal control has been tried only on limited bases and on that bases it worked.

https://www.crimesolutions.gov/ProgramDetails.aspx?ID=413
Project Exile
This worked but did not go far enough in the penalty.

The cost is worth it to protect the rights of law abiding citizens. The cost can be reduced somewhat by decriminalization of simple drug possessions

I didn't say or imply those were legal transfers.

I read through the report which, albeit limited, suggests a troubling scheme that will punish offenders extremely on a strict liability basis. I have a ton of problems with that.

And regarding costs, you say it will be worth it. What does the report say? "There is no cost information available for this program." Oh.

Ad campaigns, felony convictions, increased jail time, a lengthy appeal process by introducing a strict liability felony offence when same have been ruled unconstitutional time and again, and so on. The costs would be astronomical.

 

[spamking]

Why make an offhand comment that alludes to the absurdity of the belief that guns aren't the problem in gun violence, but they are the solution to gun violence?

To ask the question is to answer it.

Again . . . my point was if guns ARE the problem our violence should be WORSE.

Guns are a big piece in a larger puzzle.

 

[BrianFantana]

Again . . . my point was if guns ARE the problem our violence should be WORSE.

Guns are a big piece in a larger puzzle.

It should be worse than worst in the developed world?

Lofty expectations.

 

[oldshadow]

I didn't say or imply those were legal transfers.

I read through the report which, albeit limited, suggests a troubling scheme that will punish offenders extremely on a strict liability basis. I have a ton of problems with that.

And regarding costs, you say it will be worth it. What does the report say? "There is no cost information available for this program." Oh.

Ad campaigns, felony convictions, increased jail time, a lengthy appeal process by introducing a strict liability felony offence when same have been ruled unconstitutional time and again, and so on. The costs would be astronomical.

Why do you have a problem punishing criminals and holding them responsible for heir actions but have no problem punishing law abiding citizens?

The program worked and was never overturned by the courts.

 

[spamking]

Please go back through my posts from earlier in this thread. I posted links to a variety of studies that conclude: (1) gun ownership does not affect the overall crime rate; (2) gun ownership positively correlates with an increase in violent crime rate;

Which is it? If gun ownership doesn't affect the overall crime rate how can it correlate with an increase in violent crime? Are we splitting hairs here or what?

Gun ownership? Felons can't legally own a firearm.

(3) women are disproportionately affected by gun violence by men, largely their partners;

Women on disproportionately affect ONLY by gun violence by men? Not in general?

and (4) the rate of violent crime involving guns in the US is 2,520% higher than the average G20 country.

And? Way too many factors to take this seriously. Different populations of people and cultures . . .

So, yes, the research supports there would still be crime. However, it goes further to state there would be less violent crime and far fewer deaths without guns involved. I don't think that's in any way counter-intuitive. And I would urge you to read through those and see what you think.

Of course there would be fewer deaths if we were able to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals . . . .

 

[spamking]

It should be worse than worst in the developed world?

Lofty expectations.

Using the logic many gun control advocates use . . . we should be bathing in blood.

 

[BrianFantana]

Which is it? If gun ownership doesn't affect the overall crime rate how can it correlate with an increase in violent crime? Are we splitting hairs here or what?

Gun ownership? Felons can't legally own a firearm.

Women on disproportionately affect ONLY by gun violence by men? Not in general?

And? Way too many factors to take this seriously. Different populations of people and cultures . . .

Of course there would be fewer deaths if we were able to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals . . . .

Maybe you should read the studies instead of asking me to answer questions I provided the source material for. Once you have, comment on them rather than asking me to explain them to you.

On your final point, that's after the fact reasoning. A criminal becomes a criminal once they commit a crime; before that, they are not a criminal. So, your contention should be keeping guns out of the hands of would-be criminals, something that is impossible under the present scheme of gun regulation.

 

[BrianFantana]

Using the logic many gun control advocates use . . . we should be bathing in blood.

WORST IN THE DEVELOPED WORLD. I don't really know how you're saying "but other people argue it could be worse but it isn't!" You can't be worse than the worst.

 

[BrianFantana]

Why do you have a problem punishing criminals and holding them responsible for heir actions but have no problem punishing law abiding citizens?

The program worked and was never overturned by the courts.

I am not talking about "punishing" law abiding citizens. Applying a rule to everyone equally is neither punishment nor differential treatment.

And the program, in its limited use, according to the report, was successful in achieving its goals of reducing gun deaths. Again, though, there are problems with strict liability in felony offences. It removes intent, knowledge, and negligence from the equation. It's extremely problematic as policy.

 

[oldshadow]

I am not talking about "punishing" law abiding citizens. Applying a rule to everyone equally is neither punishment nor differential treatment.

And the program, in its limited use, according to the report, was successful in achieving its goals of reducing gun deaths. Again, though, there are problems with strict liability in felony offences. It removes intent, knowledge, and negligence from the equation. It's extremely problematic as policy.

You are punishing law abiding citizens by the act of restrictions, and we see that as unnecessary and unfair when the criminals should be the ones punished.

The criminals intent was to carry or have a gun in their possession when they knew the consequences of doing this. So I fail to see the problem with this. It's not like they have no idea of the law, they are informed of this.

The only problem is you don't seem to be in favor of holding criminals accountable.

 

[BrianFantana]

You are punishing law abiding citizens by the act of restrictions, and we see that as unnecessary and unfair when the criminals should be the ones punished.

The criminals intent was to carry or have a gun in their possession when they knew the consequences of doing this. So I fail to see the problem with this. It's not like they have no idea of the law, they are informed of this.

The only problem is you don't seem to be in favor of holding criminals accountable.

A restriction is not a punishment, you know that and pretending otherwise is specious.

Intent is a funny thing. I encourage you to read up on the distinction between absolute liability and strict liability offences.

And don't throw out stupid straw men at the end of your arguments that undercut any validity they may have had. I do not dispute the value of holding criminals accountable, but a "criminal" could be, in this instance, anyone who is carrying a gun that is not properly licenced, whether or not they know it is not properly licenced. So, there is a glaring possibility of people being convicted with mandatory jail time not knowing that they were in contravention of the law, or for having been negligent, while not actually having committed any violent act or posed any actual danger to another. It's troubling.

 

[oldshadow]

A restriction is not a punishment, you know that and pretending otherwise is specious.

Intent is a funny thing. I encourage you to read up on the distinction between absolute liability and strict liability offences.

And don't throw out stupid straw men at the end of your arguments that undercut any validity they may have had. I do not dispute the value of holding criminals accountable, but a "criminal" could be, in this instance, anyone who is carrying a gun that is not properly licenced, whether or not they know it is not properly licenced. So, there is a glaring possibility of people being convicted with mandatory jail time not knowing that they were in contravention of the law, or for having been negligent, while not actually having committed any violent act or posed any actual danger to another. It's troubling.

They law is about convicted felons in possession of a gun.

How did they not know they were breaking the law when they are told?

 

[spamking]

Maybe you should read the studies instead of asking me to answer questions I provided the source material for. Once you have, comment on them rather than asking me to explain them to you.

If you aren't going to discuss your source material or questions folks have then don't bother posting links to your source material. I didn't ask you to explain anything . . . I asked a question that you dodged.

I don't have all day to go through link after link and dig for some minute point you're trying to make.

On your final point, that's after the fact reasoning. A criminal becomes a criminal once they commit a crime; before that, they are not a criminal. So, your contention should be keeping guns out of the hands of would-be criminals, something that is impossible under the present scheme of gun regulation.

No, my contention shouldn't be keeping guns out the hands of would-be criminals. This isn't Minority Report. We can't predict who or when someone will commit a crime. But, we do have a pretty exhaustive list of existing repeat offenders who seem to have a very easy time getting their hands on guns. My contention is current law enforcement NOT addressing these known issues.

 

[spamking]

WORST IN THE DEVELOPED WORLD. I don't really know how you're saying "but other people argue it could be worse but it isn't!" You can't be worse than the worst.

Whatever . . . you're not getting my point so I'm moving on.

 

[spamking]

So, there is a glaring possibility of people being convicted with mandatory jail time not knowing that they were in contravention of the law, or for having been negligent, while not actually having committed any violent act or posed any actual danger to another. It's troubling.

 

[panamaican]

Chicago is complicated...like everything else.

You have a permanent underclass, a shrinking population, they're a sanctuary city and they don't have much in terms of economic prospects outside of their downtown. It's a city with a violent history going back decades to Prohibition. Now that the Mexican drug gangs have a foothold in the city, the turf wars for control of the drug trade have been climbing.

It's hard to separate Chicago's problems from the reality that they've been a sanctuary city since 1985, the related uptick in Mexican gang presence and the accompanying rise in violence.

It's not like regular citizens are being targeted. It's primarily gang on gang violence.

 

[BrianFantana]

They law is about convicted felons in possession of a gun.

How did they not know they were breaking the law when they are told?

Did you read up on absolute liability and strict liability? It will be easier to explain when we're on the same page.

 

[BrianFantana]

Whatever . . . you're not getting my point so I'm moving on.

You: we're the worst, but people say we should be even worse than the worst.

Me: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯