If you think like a democrat, then you're a democrat, right ? ...

[togor]

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2018/11/09/666209430/deaths-from-gun-violence-how-the-u-s-compares-with-the-rest-of-the-world

That the large supply of guns in this country makes guns easily available to criminals is to my knowledge, disputed by no one except possibly Lyman. This fact is often cited as a basis for rejecting more gun regs, on the logic that honest people will be disadvantaged while cheats can do business as usual, such being the gun supply. Again, I do not want to see Euro style regs, but point out that regulatory models exist that demonstrate reduced gun damage.

[lyman]

Dershowitz wrote in a WSJ opinion piece,,

when the government starts taking away some rights in the interest of safety, all rights are at risk,,,


he is likely just a touch more liberal than you,

and yet he seems to recognize that restrictions are bad,,, (the opinion piece was on red flag laws btw)


why not take the funds used to get more restrictions and put it towards fixing the problem?


hint,,, let's restrict the rights and lively hood of those cheats you mentioned,

[togor]

Thread drift, but okay. All rights are subject to adjudication on the question of whether or not they conflict with other recognized rights, whether those be individual or communal rights of the society. This is where the concept of rights paired with responsibility comes in. Responsible exercise of a right voluntarily restrains its use to prevent unreasonable collision with some other right. In simple terms, it's thoughtless people doing dumb things that usually drive more rules.

In this context, Dershowitz is warning against moving the boundary on rights for some bland assurance of increased security. He has a pretty good point there. He is not arguing that rights, any right, should exist unfettered.

[Vern Humphrey]

have they not increased (crime wise)?

suicides could be argued as cultural? vs criminal?

Virtually all mental health professionals agree the overwhelming cause of suicide is depression. Let's imagine we have a guy so depressed he wants to stick a gun in his mouth and pull the trigger. But he can't get a gun.

Does anyone believe this guy would be magically cured of his depression, and go through the rest of his life skipping and whistling?

Japan has total gun control -- and a much higher suicide rate than we do.

Lumping suicides in with homicides to come up with total number for "gun deaths" is intellectually dishonest. It tells you the person who does it is lying and knows he's lying.

[lyman]

Thread drift, but okay. All rights are subject to adjudication on the question of whether or not they conflict with other recognized rights, whether those be individual or communal rights of the society. This is where the concept of rights paired with responsibility comes in. Responsible exercise of a right voluntarily restrains its use to prevent unreasonable collision with some other right. In simple terms, it's thoughtless people doing dumb things that usually drive more rules.

In this context, Dershowitz is warning against moving the boundary on rights for some bland assurance of increased security. He has a pretty good point there. He is not arguing that rights, any right, should exist unfettered.

so,

what is the number of firearms deaths, less suicide, in the US.

domestic\gang\homicide\etc ,

remember less suicide


here,, I found it for you

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/us/gun-deaths.html

There were 39,773 gun deaths in 2017, up by more than 1,000 from the year before. Nearly two-thirds were suicides. It was the largest yearly total on record in the C.D.C.’s electronic database, which goes back 50 years, and reflects the sheer number of lives lost.

round down to 39K..

1\3 would be 13260,,,

as in roughly 13260 people were killed in gun related issues (not suicide,, using NYT numbers)

now,

how many guns,

hard number to get a definite answer on, but will will use this one

https://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2018/feb/20/kevin-nicholson/which-higher-number-people-or-number-guns-america/

which says Vox and the Post say 310 million,


google says US population was 327,000,000 in 2018


so,

13K die from by firearm, out of 327 million,,,

that is a very low rate, statistically,

and yet you want to restrict the rights of the 327 million ,,


cruel world percentages are,, but it just does not make sense to continue to take away from the folks doing right to attempt to prevent those doing wrong,


I am not going to search for locations, reasons etc, however, lets say that 13260 were killed by by one person each,

as in for each murder, only 2 people were involved (the killer and the killed)

out of 327mill, 13260 killers,

again,, very small percentage for the rest of the folks (326,986,740) to be have their rights limited or restricted,


how about we fix the real problem?

(hint, it's the reason why,, not how)

[Vern Humphrey]

how about we fix the real problem?

(hint, it's the reason why,, not how)

If we wanted to FIX the problem, we could. But instead we use it as a political football.

VIOLENT CRIME CONTROL


The Right to Bear Arms is a Civil Right. It is as much a civil right as the right to vote or the right to trial by jury. Attempts to infringe on this right damage ALL our rights, since the methods used to undermine the 2nd Amendment can be used against all other Amendments.

Further, the bearing of arms by responsible citizens is not the problem – in fact, in state after state, liberalized concealed carry laws have resulted in reduced violent crime. The right to bear arms is therefore a solution, not a problem.

That said, we must recognize that some people will use weapons for criminal purposes. This paper sets forth a concept for reasonable violent crime control, based on three principles:

• Targeting. The purpose of crime control is to prevent violence. Violent acts are committed by only a small fraction of the population. The biggest payoff therefore comes in targeting anti-violence legislation on those who commit violent acts, not on applying broad-brush restrictions to everyone.

• Incapacitation. Experience has shown that incapacitation (through incarceration) reduces the number of crimes committed by violent felons over their criminal careers.

• Enforcement. Many attempts at controlling violence have failed in the past due to lack of enforcement. There are many reasons for this, from simple non-feasance of officials to structural defects that reward non-enforcement.

We target the violent criminal through two laws;

1. Possession of a firearm in the commission of a violent crime.

2. Possession of a firearm by a previously convicted violent criminal

We must carefully word these laws to ensure we don’t target the wrong people – we’re not after kids who hunt squirrels out of season. We do this by making the gun crime dependent on another crime – a violent crime, such as murder, armed robbery, rape, and so on.

We incapacitate the violent criminal through mandatory sentencing. Although politically incorrect, mandatory sentencing is proven to work in incapacitating criminals. In this case the sentence is 10 years, mandatory, and consecutive with any other sentence. And additional 10 years, mandatory, and consecutive, is added for each subsequent offense.

A holdup of a local 7-11, for example, would net the criminal 5 years on the state, and he would typically serve two. But before being released, he would serve an additional 10 years for using a firearm in a violent crime.

If he did it again after release, this time he would get 20 years for use of a firearm in a violent crime, second offense, and 10 years for possession of a firearm by a previously-convicted violent criminal, for a total of 30 years. A third stickup would net fifty years.

We get enforcement by reserving prosecution of these crimes to a specialized office in the Justice Department. They would prosecute ONLY these two crimes. If they fail to prosecute, they go out of business. If they prosecute vigorously, they will build up a backlog of work, and according to the natural law that governs bureaucracies, will get more funding, more personnel, and more promotions.

They cannot plea bargain away anything – because they have no jurisdiction over any other crimes and nothing to gain from a plea bargain. They cannot be persuaded not to prosecute, because that would go against their interests.

They can be counted on to be vigilant of crimes committed in the various states, because state prosecution for the basic crime will facilitate federal prosecution of the firearms charges.

And finally, they can be given jurisdiction over one other crime – accessory to the first two crimes – so they can prosecute local officials who, knowing of crimes that fall under their jurisdiction, fail to inform them. Any police officer or prosecuting attorney who knows of, or who reasonably should know of a violation of these two laws, and who fails to charge the suspect, or forward charges for prosecution, shall receive the same penalty as the criminal.

[togor]

How do you catch them? The armed robber usually gets away with it. Many murders go unsolved. The mass shooter may die but scores first. Vern's proposal is after the fact and would apply to comparatively few. Remember they're graduating new criminals every day.

[S.A. Boggs]

Having worked with criminals, mentally ill there is one thing for certain. IF taken out of society no crime can/is committed and no citizen is harmed. Our Sheriff has a "wanted" poster of 10 individuals that are in need to be picked up. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM is a FTA and a judge wants them back in custody. Why not keep them in custody is simple, not enough room in our regional jail. Where do you put people who need to be put away? A solution is to execute those on death row to open up some space and we know how society will fill about that. I look to see low level drug users and dealers go free to open up space to those who need to be there. Society also has to understand the more laws made the more people will be impacted, where do you put them?
Sam

[Vern Humphrey]

Having worked with criminals, mentally ill there is one thing for certain. IF taken out of society no crime can/is committed and no citizen is harmed. Our Sheriff has a "wanted" poster of 10 individuals that are in need to be picked up. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM is a FTA and a judge wants them back in custody. Why not keep them in custody is simple, not enough room in our regional jail. Where do you put people who need to be put away? A solution is to execute those on death row to open up some space and we know how society will fill about that. I look to see low level drug users and dealers go free to open up space to those who need to be there. Society also has to understand the more laws made the more people will be impacted, where do you put them?
Sam

There was a test in Oxnard, CA years ago, where they targeted the known career criminals. When they got them all locked up, the homicide rate dropped significantly -- even though none of the career criminals were charged with killing anyone.

[lyman]

How do you catch them? The armed robber usually gets away with it. Many murders go unsolved. The mass shooter may die but scores first. Vern's proposal is after the fact and would apply to comparatively few. Remember they're graduating new criminals every day.

some of Vern's stuff was started here in RVA for gang related stuff,

ever hear of Project Exile?

it worked, when coupled with a society (and folks in the area) that have had enough,,