A Question to Ponder on Miscreant Control

[HayesGreener]

Take a look at England that has very strict firearm regulations. Now they have strict knife regulations, next they'll need a background check on baseball and cricket bats. Even with the death penalty humans murder one another..... daily!

I was in the U.K. working with the Constabulary on cases in 2008 and had many discussions with detectives on this topic. The Parliament were debating restrictions on knives at the time. I can tell you that many U.K. officers think many of their restrictive laws are stupid, and have the same views on liberal policies and laws that we do. Especially where it pertains to self defense.

I recall watching the Changing of the Guard ceremony at Buckingham Palace. We Americans were impressed with the ceremony, while U.K. citizens present seemed more interested that Metropolitan Police officers protecting the palace were carrying firearms.

 

[Snake45]

"Gun control" is a con game that the politicians have been playing for more than 50 years. It lets them pretend to be "doing something" about crime/violence at little or no cost and no pain to their constituents, and kick the can down the road until they can hopefully retire on juicy public pensions (or die of old age).

Whatever they propose, they know we will fight it tooth and nail, and they will get only a portion of what they want, if any. They also know that any change in the gun laws will have no effect on the crime/violence problem (unless it's to make it even worse), so they can come back next year and play the game again--and again, put off indefinitely actually doing anything that might make a difference (but maybe cost effort and or $$$).

They've been running this con game for decades and will happily run it for decades more.

 

[somorris]

I guess what the main question is for what crimes or mental states can someone's constitutionally guaranteed rights be taken away. We take away freedom when we lock someone up for a crime. I think restricting them from owning a firearm isn't all that big a step.

 

[Talyn]

"Reasonable people will agree that there are some humans who should not even be at large in society, and we can all agree that some should never be allowed to get their hands on a weapon"

Tell the jail population this is a way to reduce their jail time.

 

[BreakingWind]

The extreme left view that all guns are bad and should be banned, and the extreme right view that everyone should be able to get a gun no matter what, are so far apart that no common ground for dialogue exists. Neither of those conditions will ever exist in an organized society. Attempts to reason with either end of the spectrum from the center will fall on deaf ears and devolve into finger pointing, labeling, and name calling. Nothing good can come from that.

Sorry, but I don't see that happening. Best you could hope for is an honest "civilized" debate. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening either as political divide just keeps growing. Hope for best, expect the worse, and get on with your life.

 

[benstt]

Sorry, but I don't see that happening. Best you could hope for is an honest "civilized" debate. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening either as political divide just keeps growing. Hope for best, expect the worse, and get on with your life.

The more you try to understand other positions when you talk with people, the more receptive they are to you. It makes a difference. Acknowledge where they are at so they feel heard and you have a real chance of a productive dialogue. I've done it on here. I have a few private messages to the effect of "you've showed me not all liberals are terrible" and it comes from taking the time to understand how someone got to their position. I've certainly gotten fighty on here, too, and that makes someone shut down right away. The takeaway: take the time to understand WHY they are anti gun and meet them there is much more productive than stamping your feet and shouting "what about 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand?" could ever be. Plenty of people have no experience other than tv shows or had a single bad experience and are willing to be open minded.

 

[BreakingWind]

The more you try to understand other positions when you talk with people, the more receptive they are to you. It makes a difference. Acknowledge where they are at so they feel heard and you have a real chance of a productive dialogue. I've done it on here. I have a few private messages to the effect of "you've showed me not all liberals are terrible" and it comes from taking the time to understand how someone got to their position. I've certainly gotten fighty on here, too, and that makes someone shut down right away. The takeaway: take the time to understand WHY they are anti gun and meet them there is much more productive than stamping your feet and shouting "what about 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand?" could ever be. Plenty of people have no experience other than tv shows or had a single bad experience and are willing to be open minded.

I don't bother any longer. Problem is, you try to understand their position but they have no desire to understand yours, That's not a debate its a diatribe. It's like trying to pet a rabid dog, sorry, but no thank you.
BTW: Still trying to digest "not all liberals are terrible" hmmmmmm! lol...

 

[benstt]

I don't bother any longer. Problem is, you try to understand their position but they have no desire to understand yours, That's not a debate its a diatribe. It's like trying to pet a rabid dog, sorry, but no thank you.
BTW: Still trying to digest "not all liberals are terrible" hmmmmmm! lol...

Yep, I'm a lefty who also digs 2A. No one should buy a party platform lock, stock, and barrel.

Understanding their positions and resonating that understanding takes away the image of the scary redneck gun owner. That's the first step: overcoming the belief that only certain groups like guns and they're all unwashed and simpleminded. I can show them that a highly educated, white-collar professional enjoys 2A just as much anyone else and it gives other people who might be curious a chance to give it a try. Believe me, it works. Sometimes we just have to take the high road.

 

[benstt]

I don't bother any longer. Problem is, you try to understand their position but they have no desire to understand yours, That's not a debate its a diatribe. It's like trying to pet a rabid dog, sorry, but no thank you.
BTW: Still trying to digest "not all liberals are terrible" hmmmmmm! lol...

I get the sense we're talking about different people, too. You seem to be referring to the extremists. Most people aren't those. Try for the people in the middle who havent taken a hardline stance. I think you'll find that's the majority and they are open minded. Those are the people to win over.

 

[Jimbo]

In my view, if someone has been convicted of committing a violent crime against another, or if they are a member of a terrorist group, or a group which seeks to overthrow the government, then they should not be permitted to carry a gun. You could add to that list children, and those who are mentally incapable of living an independent life.

On that last point, there will be some controversy as to how do you determine if someone is mentally incapable; for this category, there should be lots of discussion and input from lots of people.

I don't believe that a non-violent crime should automatically disqualify someone from being able to carry or own a gun. But there may be some non-violent crimes, maybe a lot of non-violent crimes, which should disqualify someone.

 

[Bassbob]

I say yes, but I don't agree with the broad definition of "violent felony." If a person decides to commit robbery, burglary, rapez serious assault, or attempted murder we should do all we can to prevent them from having weapons and make the penalties harsh if then do get a weapon.

That’s the rub. If the penalties actually were harsh I agree completely. I don’t necessarily disagree either way, though hypothetically speaking I would accept them being armed over me being disarmed. Especially considering that even with the law, they clearly are armed.

 

[Bassbob]

In my view, if someone has been convicted of committing a violent crime against another, or if they are a member of a terrorist group, or a group which seeks to overthrow the government, then they should not be permitted to carry a gun. You could add to that list children, and those who are mentally incapable of living an independent life.

On that last point, there will be some controversy as to how do you determine if someone is mentally incapable; for this category, there should be lots of discussion and input from lots of people.

I don't believe that a non-violent crime should automatically disqualify someone from being able to carry or own a gun. But there may be some non-violent crimes, maybe a lot of non-violent crimes, which should disqualify someone.

Which non violent crimes should disqualify someone?

You gotta keep in mind that even harsh penalties are very unlikely to keep a criminal from arming themselves. 90% of the gun crimes committed in St. Louis for example are committed by felons. And the cops all know that arresting them doesn’t do much because they’re usually back on the street the next day.

 

[benstt]

Which non violent crimes should disqualify someone?

You gotta keep in mind that even harsh penalties are very unlikely to keep a criminal from arming themselves. 90% of the gun crimes committed in St. Louis for example are committed by felons. And the cops all know that arresting them doesn’t do much because they’re usually back on the street the next day.

I think a solution to that is prioritizing certain offenses. Right now we have a TON of people in prison for drug offenses, and not just high-level dealers. Those kind of offenses swamp the court system and the prison system. I'd drastically scale back the number of drug crimes that go to prison (maybe mandatory treatment) except for high-level dealers and focus on actual crimes of violence, like the 90% of gun crimes you mentioned. THOSE are the people who need to go to the can.

 

[C. Sumpin]

"or if they are a member of a terrorist group, or a group which seeks to overthrow the government,"

Better be cautious with that one Jimbo.........Who declares a group is terrorist? Many an honorable person/group has been labeled terrorist as defined by Governments, and thrown in the Gulag or worse. And one day members of this forum could be too. Hello? Are you aware the Constitution gives us citizens the right to overthrow/change a tyrannical Government? A government that ignores / denies the Constitution? A Godless Government?

"You could add to that list children, and those who are mentally incapable of living an independent life." The last seven words here describe the POTUS. In the state of Vermont a minor, with the consent of his parents, can lawfully carry; you going to trample States Rights? Let's not overmuch worry about who should not be able to carry a firearm but rather expand and protect the right of those who do.

Now if Uncle, with all the intrusive high tech methods available to him, would focus his algorithms/snoopers/agents on criminal and potential criminal types rather than legitimate 2A folks many a crime/criminal would be stopped before the fact just with the digits typed on his cell/social media. You believe the "noise" on a drug dealers cell can not be read? The mentally/emotional unstable group, (crazy but capable of living an independent life) though not large, may be the most difficult to detect and prevent; you just really can not know for certain what's going on behind that set of eyes you are looking into.

 

[Bassbob]

I think a solution to that is prioritizing certain offenses. Right now we have a TON of people in prison for drug offenses, and not just high-level dealers. Those kind of offenses swamp the court system and the prison system. I'd drastically scale back the number of drug crimes that go to prison (maybe mandatory treatment) except for high-level dealers and focus on actual crimes of violence, like the 90% of gun crimes you mentioned. THOSE are the people who need to go to the can.

Again we find ourselves in complete agreement.

 

[Jimbo]

"or if they are a member of a terrorist group, or a group which seeks to overthrow the government,"

Better be cautious with that one Jimbo.........Who declares a group is terrorist? Many an honorable person/group has been labeled terrorist as defined by Governments, and thrown in the Gulag or worse. And one day members of this forum could be too. Hello? Are you aware the Constitution gives us citizens the right to overthrow/change a tyrannical Government? A government that ignores / denies the Constitution? A Godless Government?

"You could add to that list children, and those who are mentally incapable of living an independent life." The last seven words here describe the POTUS. In the state of Vermont a minor, with the consent of his parents, can lawfully carry; you going to trample States Rights? Let's not overmuch worry about who should not be able to carry a firearm but rather expand and protect the right of those who do.

Now if Uncle, with all the intrusive high tech methods available to him, would focus his algorithms/snoopers/agents on criminal and potential criminal types rather than legitimate 2A folks many a crime/criminal would be stopped before the fact just with the digits typed on his cell/social media. You believe the "noise" on a drug dealers cell can not be read? The mentally/emotional unstable group, (crazy but capable of living an independent life) though not large, may be the most difficult to detect and prevent; you just really can not know for certain what's going on behind that set of eyes you are looking into.

My thought is that if someone has a propensity to violence, if they aren't mentally capable of safely handling a gun, or if they refuse to accept the concept of "the rule of law", they shouldn't be allowed to carry or own a gun.

I think most of us can agree on those general concepts; but I agree with you, how do you translate these concepts into law so as to restrict the bad people while not restricting the good people?

We have to try; and the beautiful thing about our form of government here in America is that we can continually improve on the laws we have created. At least that is the theory.

 

[Bassbob]

My thought is that if someone has a propensity to violence, if they aren't mentally capable of safely handling a gun, or if they refuse to accept the concept of "the rule of law", they shouldn't be allowed to carry or own a gun.

I think most of us can agree on those general concepts; but I agree with you, how do you translate these concepts into law so as to restrict the bad people while not restricting the good people?

We have to try; and the beautiful thing about our form of government here in America is that we can continually improve on the laws we have created. At least that is the theory.

The problem with that is that in nearly every historical example, as it pertains to gun laws, the “ Improvement “ came at the expensive of the rights of law abiding citizens and almost universally failed to achieve the stated objective.

 

[C. Sumpin]

We have been trying, with myriad laws, forever, to keep firearms from criminals. Unsuccessful. Don't worry about it and stop passing laws trying to prevent it. Just promote the 2A and watch the problem dwindle. And with harsh prosecution in the courts of those felons that survive a tangle with armed citizens.

The Cardinal Truth that no one, and certainly no Government, is going to be able to guarantee your safety from others continues to be forgotten. Only YOU can do that. The current momentum against that is a Leftist method. If the Government would only limit/protect us from foreign harm (as they are charged but fail to do) that would be adequate.

 

[BreakingWind]

I get the sense we're talking about different people, too. You seem to be referring to the extremists. Most people aren't those. Try for the people in the middle who havent taken a hardline stance. I think you'll find that's the majority and they are open minded. Those are the people to win over.

No we aren't talking about different people. See, herein lies the rub, I don't have a desire to win anyone over. If someone honestly has questions like my 18 year old grandson did and wants to have a conversation than I will by all means give you all the time you want, I even took him shooting. We both found that is not his cup of tea and we're OK with that. But when you say that I need to understand someone else's point of view than more than likely they already have a hardline stance and I WILL NOT waste my time debating, conversing, arguing, talking, or have any other form of communication with them on that topic. If it absolutely requires a response I just tell them, "some people exercise their 2A rights and some don't, whether you do or don't is your decision and I'm alright with that" and then I walk away. I don't try to understand their point of view, I don't try to win them over, I don't even try to explain to them my reasons for carrying because at the end of the day, I don't care if they agree with it or not, I don't need their approval and if I don't have it I loose no sleep at night. I have friends on both sides of the issue and I have no idea if they even know I carry. They've never had a reason to ask and I've never had a reason to tell them.

 

[m1911jim]

To the OP: I totally agree with the intent of keeping guns out of the hands of those who have shown by there actions that they should not have them.

Here come the "but".

But, I do not think laws can do that. It is my observation that every law intended to control human behavior is a failure. That's why we have law enforcement people like yourself. I would think that in your years of experience you would have been able to see that criminals just don't obey laws. Also, laws have to be broken to be enforced, which is somewhat of a paradox.

However, maybe my viewpoint is incorrect. Even if laws could work to prevent crime, the other problem with trying to find common ground is that the left always takes every small move in the direction they want to go as being a permanent win for them. They work like a ratchet. Every "click" is non-reversible. Rational people dealing with them think they are compromising to move forward, but the left seizes on every compromise as not only a win, but proof that they were right in their war on sanity to begin with. Have you ever seen the left give up ground to move forward?