CDZ The best strategy, disarming law abiding gun owners, or keeping criminals locked up.

[2aguy]

Another story about releasing violent gun offenders is in the press today. This time, it is Washington D.C. complaining about the policy of releasing violent, repeat gun offenders over and over again. This policy is in place in the major cities....including Detroit, D.C., Baltimore, Chicago, St. Louis.....all of the places where there are a lot of gun crimes and murders. New York, which had better policies in place after Rudy Guilliani, is now going back to those same policies....catch and release of violent gun offenders.

So...My strategy is simple...keep violent gun criminals locked up in jail....this worked in the past, it works now. Can someone on the other side explain how releasing repeat gun criminals will lower the gun crime rate?

 

[miketx]

Another story about releasing violent gun offenders is in the press today. This time, it is Washington D.C. complaining about the policy of releasing violent, repeat gun offenders over and over again. This policy is in place in the major cities....including Detroit, D.C., Baltimore, Chicago, St. Louis.....all of the places where there are a lot of gun crimes and murders. New York, which had better policies in place after Rudy Guilliani, is now going back to those same policies....catch and release of violent gun offenders.

So...My strategy is simple...keep violent gun criminals locked up in jail....this worked in the past, it works now. Can someone on the other side explain how releasing repeat gun criminals will lower the gun crime rate?

It will lower the crime rate by giving cockroach democrats more chances to call for more gun control after one of their releasees murder. Until all the guns are gone and we resort to knives and hammers to kill with.

 

[candycorn]

A mixture of harsher sentences for gun crimes and much more invasive background checks is needed. Neither of which disarm anyone.

 

[2aguy]

A mixture of harsher sentences for gun crimes and much more invasive background checks is needed. Neither of which disarm anyone.

Incorrect.....invasive background checks violate several Rights, the 2nd, the 4th, and the 5th at a minimum....also, the only reason to have invasive background checks is to later demand gun registration.

We currently have all the laws we need to arrest and imprison criminals who use guns illegally.......background checks that track private gun ownership are no different than requiring people to state who they vote for. The Secret Ballot is used to protect people from persecution.....gun ownership can be attacked when gun ownership is known by the government....

 

[miketx]

A mixture of harsher sentences for gun crimes and much more invasive background checks is needed. Neither of which disarm anyone.

I know you won't do it but tell us how to make background checks more invasive and how that will help if it's possible. You people are always long on how to fix things and very short on specifics.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Another story about releasing violent gun offenders is in the press today. This time, it is Washington D.C. complaining about the policy of releasing violent, repeat gun offenders over and over again. This policy is in place in the major cities....including Detroit, D.C., Baltimore, Chicago, St. Louis.....all of the places where there are a lot of gun crimes and murders. New York, which had better policies in place after Rudy Guilliani, is now going back to those same policies....catch and release of violent gun offenders.

So...My strategy is simple...keep violent gun criminals locked up in jail....this worked in the past, it works now. Can someone on the other side explain how releasing repeat gun criminals will lower the gun crime rate?

I think it is a simplistic answer to simply keep people who used guns from being able to own one upon release. So, the best way (on this count) is to make sure that every person sent to prison is rehabilitated before releasing them.

A term of time does not rehabilitate a person. Prisoners should have to meet certain markers in order to get out of prison. A GED, drug rehab, anger management, seminars in job finding techniques, balancing a checkbook, applying for credit, housing, etc. along with interviewing techniques and housekeeping skills should be taught before releasing people from prison.

Still, I could stop most of these people from committing acts of violence long before they become adults. We really should be doing that. Instead, our society are the ones responsible for creating criminals.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

A mixture of harsher sentences for gun crimes and much more invasive background checks is needed. Neither of which disarm anyone.

Background checks have proven to be as worthless as tits on a boar hog. They are an invasion of privacy; they make a mockery of the Fourth Amendment and do not stop crime.

I could offer something much better without the cost and no gun control. The solution, however, doesn't fit on a bumper sticker.

 

[candycorn]

A mixture of harsher sentences for gun crimes and much more invasive background checks is needed. Neither of which disarm anyone.

Background checks have proven to be as worthless as tits on a boar hog. They are an invasion of privacy; they make a mockery of the Fourth Amendment and do not stop crime.

I could offer something much better without the cost and no gun control. The solution, however, doesn't fit on a bumper sticker.

Background checks have kept weapons away from 1.8 million people who shouldn’t have had the guns. They work as well as they can; which is why we need to strengthen them.

 

[2aguy]

A mixture of harsher sentences for gun crimes and much more invasive background checks is needed. Neither of which disarm anyone.

Background checks have proven to be as worthless as tits on a boar hog. They are an invasion of privacy; they make a mockery of the Fourth Amendment and do not stop crime.

I could offer something much better without the cost and no gun control. The solution, however, doesn't fit on a bumper sticker.

Background checks have kept weapons away from 1.8 million people who shouldn’t have had the guns. They work as well as they can; which is why we need to strengthen them.

That number is a lie.....

At Townhall: When Democrats Push For Universal Background Checks, The Danger Of A National Gun Registry Looms - Crime Prevention Research Center

One talking point we’ll likely hear many times in the next few weeks: Background checks have stopped 3.5 million dangerous or prohibited people from buying guns. That is simply false.

There have been 3.5 million initial denials, but at least 96% and probably over 99%, of those denials are mistakes. The system relies largely on identifying phonetically similar names, causing false positives that overwhelmingly discriminate against poor and middle-income blacks and Hispanics. It’s one thing to stop a felon from buying a gun. But it’s quite another to stop someone from getting a gun because their name resembles a felon’s.

If politicians want background checks to stop criminals from getting guns, rather than create headline-driving, racially-biased false-positives, there is a simple fix: require that the government does background checks in the same way that the government forces private companies to do background checks on employees – make them use all the information available, including exact names and birthdates.

In New York City and Washington, D.C., background checks on private gun transfers cost at least $125. These costs present a genuine obstacle to poor people living in high-crime, urban areas. The law-abiding potential victims of violent crimes are the least able to afford these costs. Gang members won’t pay them. Democrats who think that voter ID laws are unfairly onerous for poor minorities ought to appreciate the obstacles presented by background check fees. . . . .

 

[JoeB131]

Another story about releasing violent gun offenders is in the press today. This time, it is Washington D.C. complaining about the policy of releasing violent, repeat gun offenders over and over again. This policy is in place in the major cities....including Detroit, D.C., Baltimore, Chicago, St. Louis.....all of the places where there are a lot of gun crimes and murders. New York, which had better policies in place after Rudy Guilliani, is now going back to those same policies....catch and release of violent gun offenders.

We lock up 2 million people... we don't have enough room to lock people up for "merely having a gun".

 

[Mac1958]

To make this situation even MORE complicated, there are plenty of people running around out there who really don't CARE about being locked up. A lot of their friends are in there and there's plenty of shit going on behind bars for them. So prison is less of a deterrent than the rest of us might think.

 

[JoeB131]

To make this situation even MORE complicated, there are plenty of people running around out there who really don't CARE about being locked up. A lot of their friends are in there and there's plenty of shit going on behind bars for them. So prison is less of a deterrent than the rest of us might think.

Mac, tell us again how not racist you are... that never gets old.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

A mixture of harsher sentences for gun crimes and much more invasive background checks is needed. Neither of which disarm anyone.

Background checks have proven to be as worthless as tits on a boar hog. They are an invasion of privacy; they make a mockery of the Fourth Amendment and do not stop crime.

I could offer something much better without the cost and no gun control. The solution, however, doesn't fit on a bumper sticker.

Background checks have kept weapons away from 1.8 million people who shouldn’t have had the guns. They work as well as they can; which is why we need to strengthen them.

That number is a lie.....

At Townhall: When Democrats Push For Universal Background Checks, The Danger Of A National Gun Registry Looms - Crime Prevention Research Center

One talking point we’ll likely hear many times in the next few weeks: Background checks have stopped 3.5 million dangerous or prohibited people from buying guns. That is simply false.

There have been 3.5 million initial denials, but at least 96% and probably over 99%, of those denials are mistakes. The system relies largely on identifying phonetically similar names, causing false positives that overwhelmingly discriminate against poor and middle-income blacks and Hispanics. It’s one thing to stop a felon from buying a gun. But it’s quite another to stop someone from getting a gun because their name resembles a felon’s.

If politicians want background checks to stop criminals from getting guns, rather than create headline-driving, racially-biased false-positives, there is a simple fix: require that the government does background checks in the same way that the government forces private companies to do background checks on employees – make them use all the information available, including exact names and birthdates.

In New York City and Washington, D.C., background checks on private gun transfers cost at least $125. These costs present a genuine obstacle to poor people living in high-crime, urban areas. The law-abiding potential victims of violent crimes are the least able to afford these costs. Gang members won’t pay them. Democrats who think that voter ID laws are unfairly onerous for poor minorities ought to appreciate the obstacles presented by background check fees. . . . .

I got denied once based upon a 1976 arrest. I had to get county employees to dig in archives records to come up with the judge's dismissal of the charges at the initial hearing. Sorry libs, denials do not affect just criminals, they hurt the law abiding and waste a lot of taxpayer dollars enforcing an unconstitutional law.

 

[anynameyouwish]

Another story about releasing violent gun offenders is in the press today. This time, it is Washington D.C. complaining about the policy of releasing violent, repeat gun offenders over and over again. This policy is in place in the major cities....including Detroit, D.C., Baltimore, Chicago, St. Louis.....all of the places where there are a lot of gun crimes and murders. New York, which had better policies in place after Rudy Guilliani, is now going back to those same policies....catch and release of violent gun offenders.

So...My strategy is simple...keep violent gun criminals locked up in jail....this worked in the past, it works now. Can someone on the other side explain how releasing repeat gun criminals will lower the gun crime rate?

Keep violent criminals locked up in jail?

but what if, while in jail, they "see the light" and vow to support conservative christian republican causes and ONLY engage in violence against your enemies; decent people....?

seems to me cons would want as many violent murderous thugs in their ranks as they can get.....

 

[2aguy]

Another story about releasing violent gun offenders is in the press today. This time, it is Washington D.C. complaining about the policy of releasing violent, repeat gun offenders over and over again. This policy is in place in the major cities....including Detroit, D.C., Baltimore, Chicago, St. Louis.....all of the places where there are a lot of gun crimes and murders. New York, which had better policies in place after Rudy Guilliani, is now going back to those same policies....catch and release of violent gun offenders.

We lock up 2 million people... we don't have enough room to lock people up for "merely having a gun".

And you fail to point out the rest of that equation....the democrat party keeps letting known, repeat offenders out of prison, often in less than 3 years.....locking up violent gun offenders does nothing, if you just let them back out again with a revolving door......the police chiefs of these cities are telling everyone, the primary reason for gun crime is the constant releasing of violent gun offenders on bond and out of prison with short sentences....

 

[2aguy]

To make this situation even MORE complicated, there are plenty of people running around out there who really don't CARE about being locked up. A lot of their friends are in there and there's plenty of shit going on behind bars for them. So prison is less of a deterrent than the rest of us might think.

Deterrent or not, once you commit a crime with a gun, it is a life sentence...you are taken care of. If you are caught with an illegal gun, deterrent law or not, you are sent away for 30 years......you are taken care of.......

 

[M14 Shooter]

A mixture of harsher sentences for gun crimes and much more invasive background checks is needed. Neither of which disarm anyone.

Everything that disqualifies you for gun ownership is public record - thus, background checks need be no more invasive than checking said public records.

 

[2aguy]

A mixture of harsher sentences for gun crimes and much more invasive background checks is needed. Neither of which disarm anyone.

Everything that disqualifies you for gun ownership is public record - thus, background checks need be no more invasive than checking said public records.

Excellent point.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

A mixture of harsher sentences for gun crimes and much more invasive background checks is needed. Neither of which disarm anyone.

Everything that disqualifies you for gun ownership is public record - thus, background checks need be no more invasive than checking said public records.

Try reading the Fourth Amendment.

 

[M14 Shooter]

A mixture of harsher sentences for gun crimes and much more invasive background checks is needed. Neither of which disarm anyone.

Everything that disqualifies you for gun ownership is public record - thus, background checks need be no more invasive than checking said public records.

Try reading the Fourth Amendment.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

How does this relate to the state checking the public records of the state?