Thread: Firearms: The Common Person & the Criminal

You had me till here:

Originally Posted by hardblues

I do believe that any crimes associated to firearms and other weapons should carry added mandatory sentences that the court cannot tamper with and I would be in support of individuals owning firearms being required to take and ownership/use course.

Mandatory sentences go against our right to be judged by a jury of our peers, imo, since we are being judged for the actions of others that preceeded us. A crime is a crime, it doesnt matter if a gun is used or a car, or a bat, and for that matter it doesnt matter if the victim is white, black straight or gay or any other classification.

I could get behind the requirement of taking a course, as long as it stems from the state, which most states already have, at least to hunt and for concealed carry permits.

“Tell the American people never to lose their guns. As long as they keep their guns in their hands, what happened here will never happen there."

- 1990, a student from Beijing, China, describes the last words of her parents, killed at Tiananmen Square

Those who trade liberty for security have neither.



Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.



If guns cause crime, all of mine are defective! - Ted Nugent

[QUOTE=thebigspendur;589844]You need to look at Police and FBI statistics involving use of firearms. Stay away from hype by any organizations pro one way or the other.

QUOTE]

And the FBI and police statistics are not pro- one way or the other? It seems to me that the same people who carry guns for their own protection, dont like the fact that we can do the same, if we can all protect ourselves, would they continue to get funding or does it help them get their funding because we are becoming more and more at their mercy. As soon as the FBI and Police say that they dont need to carry a weapon, I will start to take their word for it, or atleast when their funding isnt tied to an emotional response to their stats. It is very easy to keep track of stats that are pro your point of view, while allowing any stat that goes against that to disappear.

I dont trust NRA stats, because their funding depends on those stats, I dont trust Justice Department stats, for the same reason, and I dont trust the legislative branches stats, because their power and funding depends on ever more assumptions of power.

Before I hear about not having any idea about the sacrifices law enforcement makes to try and keep us safe, let me say, Jan 5 of this year one of my closest cousins, was shot and killed in the line of duty, by an illegal alien, who had been deported before, with an AK-47, while high on meth. I dont blame the gun, the illegality of the perp, border patrol or the meth, it was the action of one person who made a stupid decision(shooting a cop vs going back to prison), who despite his actions went to jail any way, and my family as well as his will be paying for his decision for years to come.

I could go on for days......... but I'll save you all the reading
Individual responsible firearm ownership is so important it hurts.

In a world without guns - the physically weak are vulnerable to the physically strong.

"Be not afraid of any man,
No matter what his size,
Take me in your good right hand,
And I will equalize."

Originally Posted by Jasongreat

You had me till here:



Mandatory sentences go against our right to be judged by a jury of our peers, imo, since we are being judged for the actions of others that preceeded us. A crime is a crime, it doesnt matter if a gun is used or a car, or a bat, and for that matter it doesnt matter if the victim is white, black straight or gay or any other classification.

I could get behind the requirement of taking a course, as long as it stems from the state, which most states already have, at least to hunt and for concealed carry permits.

Jason...perhaps you don't understand how it works...mandatory sentences have nothing to do with being judged by a jury of your/our peers. In trial, a case is heard in the court by the jury and presented to the jury with instruction by the judge as to what the charges are by definition, charges, maximum sentences allowed, etc. In short, the jury has been presented with all evidentiary information for/against as allowed by the court, then they are further rinstructed on the possible sentence result if there be a finding of guilt on each charge/count...and...then with all of that information, they go into deliberation knowing the case and the result to the accused of their finding.

Mandatory sentences are quite common...like with DUI for first, 2nd, third, fourth convictions as the person is seen as a habitual offender and therefore a greater threat to the public, which, really is the point of it all.
Further along that line, a person who break into your home for the purpose of committing a crime is guilty of Burglary, if he does so in possession of a weapon, that crime in most states becomes aggravated (or similar entitlement/classification) Burglary...a person, without a weapon who demands your wallet is guilty of robbery and a menace, but, not perceived as menacing as someone who rams a magnum in your stomach and tells you to give it up, or he "blow your $!@^ all over the street" or comes up behind you grabs your hair to tilt your head back while holding a blade to your throat...Make Sense?

As well, if a budding criminal knows that the commission of a crime with a weapon aggravates the base offense and will result in mandatory sentencing and with that knowledge, still choose that course...how does that interfere with their right to a fair impartial trial...knowing the possible results of your actions before hand and then choosing to do the deed is on the back of the perpetrator, not the rest of us...at least in my opinion.

As to your refernces to white, black, gay straight...where does this fit into the topic?

Originally Posted by RareBreed

I could go on for days......... but I'll save you all the reading
Individual responsible firearm ownership is so important it hurts.

In a world without guns - the physically weak are vulnerable to the physically strong.

"Be not afraid of any man,
No matter what his size,
Take me in your good right hand,
And I will equalize."

Kind of reminds me of, God created man, Samuel Colt made them equal

In Florida they have a law called 10-20-life. If you commit a crime with a gun you get a mandatory minimum of 10 years. Shoot it in the commission of the crime 20 years, and shoot someone life. Here is a write up on it with stats on positive results.

Kind of reminds me of, God created man, Samuel Colt made them equal

Yep, very similar tone. I always thought that "be afraid of no man" qoute would look great engraved on a set of grips...

The first day on the job our director addressed us right after swearing in and to this day I remember what he said about handguns. He said too many people strap on a gun and it makes them walk ten feet tall.

I've always thought when you sit down and run through all the scenarios in which you might have use for a handgun most of them put the carrier at a distinct disadvantage to the perp. Couple that with panic and trying to shoot at someone shooting back at you and a moving target, most out there including trained LEO are simply not prepared for that. Too often the gun itself can escalate a robbery into something much more. Too many think a handgun is the solution when it in fact can be just the opposite.

Just a thought.