(02-14-2018, 11:08 PM)TJBender Wrote: 2. The jury holds the ultimate power, and "self defense" is a common defense. Not to mention that the DA is under no obligation to prosecute, ever, as we see so often in cases like those you cite of offenders being let off with a slapped wrist. If a jury believes that someone charged with a crime didn't commit it or was faced with circumstances that excuse their crime, that's what "not guilty" is for.

Those are more of exceptions than the rule. Besides, I'm referring to the judges or prosecutors that simply dismiss cases because they don't want to risk tarnishing their record which happens frequently. I know that the prosecutors aren't required to try cases, but when you have repeat offenders getting off scot-free then there's a problem.

3. If the gun was sold legally and the buyer later used it illegally, the seller has nothing to worry about. If the seller ignored or broke the law and the buyer used that gun illegally, yes, the seller should be held accountable. Hell, if a seller is caught skirting the law they should be held accountable regardless of whether or not guns they sold were used illegally.

That didn't seem to be what you were talking about. I'm fine with punishment for sellers that sell weapons illegally, just not those that sell it legally. But they're already held accountable. 

4. Bill failed to secure a deadly weapon, and a member of his immediate family was able to get their hands on it and use it against another human being. He absolutely bears a large degree of responsibility for the crime. Ever seen anyone try to rob a Stab-N-Go with a baseball bat? Here's a hint: the clerk is legally in possession of a firearm.

I don't secure my weapons. When I need them, I don't need them secured. Don't get me wrong, my infant child doesn't have the ability to reach them or they would be more secured, but they certainly wont be inaccessible or difficult to get to. If it's time to use a gun in defense of your person, you don't have time to waste. I don't think we'll ever agree that someone should be held accountable if their gun is stolen (even by family).

No, the punishment should not be exclusive to gun crimes. I could go into a whole diatribe about how the for-profit prison system in the United States has resulted in more and more nonviolent drug offenders being sent to prison, which diminishes the amount of room available for the people who actually belong there. Many of those nonviolent drug offenders are in there because they have severe mental health issues, which comes back around to the inevitable point. Yes, we have a mental health problem, and fixing that will solve lots of other problems.

It isn't so much of an opinion on what we should do with drug offenses, but the presence of drug offenders wont deter prisons from housing violent suspects. Until we can get appropriate care for people with mental issues, they shouldn't be on the streets. If they use stupid drug laws to accomplish that, I simply don't have a problem with it. It isn't an ideal solution, however.

(02-14-2018, 11:31 PM)JackCity Wrote: Just a question. Would it help at all if all gun owners were required to go for a psych exam twice a year? I know it's already part of the process in places and it wouldn't stop people getting unlawful guns but it might help some.

Then again where do you draw the line for the mental capacity required to own a gun in the first place?

That's the problem. Who decides who is unfit to possess a gun? If there was a 100% reliable test that showed when someone had a propensity for violence, then you'd probably be able to pass this as law. But how do we know when someone isn't kept from owning a gun because the the examiner simply doesn't like him, or if the government doesn't want to hand out as many permits? We've already seen the IRS target conservative groups; do we not think this would happen too?

(02-15-2018, 06:58 AM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: Unfortunately, there will be no answers to this problem, because Republicans and Democrats refuse to compromise and work together on anything. They just continually blame each other for everything bad in the world. I am a responsible gun owner and I believe certain people should be limited from owning guns. If you are convicted of any type of violent crime or have had any mental health issues, you should not be allowed to own a firearm. if you obtain one illegally, you and the person who sold it to you should go to federal prison on set, minimum sentences of 10 years with no parole. A second offense should result in 30 years with no chance at parole. A 3rd offense should result in life in prison.

Those are already laws.

I'm agree with more strict sentencing though.

(02-15-2018, 07:17 AM)Caldrac Wrote: Now, I know statistically we can all sit here and say that "Out of 340M people, guns are only responsible for 0.02% of our yearly deaths. And how many of those shootings were committed during disputes or in areas known for high crime rates and violence?". I get that. I really, really get that. BUT... as a human being. It's a bitter pill to swallow because it's easy for us to say that and play that card when it's not YOUR family being gunned down. When it's not YOUR child being cut down.

I think that's a rather large assumption as to the burden people hold when they consider these situations. 

(02-15-2018, 12:10 PM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: The 2nd Amendment was written in 1791 when people were using muskets.  There is no need for anyone to own a AR-15.  Let the sporting clubs secure them for shooting on their designated sites if people want to for AR-15's for sport.

Naturally, the response to that was that the 1st Amendment was written when people wrote hand-written notes and the like. It wasn't written for computers, telephones, the internet, etc.

Besides, there were examples of semiautomatic weapons like the Puckle gun available at the time. The use of cannons were also allowed on boats (private property). I'm not sure this is the best argument to use.

---