Gun control a comparison US vs Russia

[Bronco70]

Another gun thread! I'm sure we are really going to persuade people to different opinions this time! Especially since so many minds were changed on this board after scores of school children were massacred...

^Absolutely missing the point of the whole discussion. Nevertheless, I did get a good laugh from you managing to be both condescending and clueless in the confines of a single statement. So, thanks for that...

...Now the bullet patterns and such make perfect sense. To a degree, it also blows the argument of "Criminals don't obey laws" out of the water if you follow it through just a little further. Criminals don't obey laws.. great. But Criminals also find every crack, every nook, every possible way to get through the screen we call "Law" they can. "Criminal Lawyer" indeed! This evidence would help build better, stronger cases against the worst criminals, those that are actually using the guns for violent crimes. That tied in with tougher gun laws gets those criminals off the streets for longer periods of time.

I had trouble figuring out exactly what you're trying to say here, Roach. I mean, I get the basic gist of it, but I don't follow how you got there...

Cataloging ballistics patterns may seem reasonable, on the face of it, but I have two questions about it:

1. How much extra time, money, and manpower is involved, even to keep such records just for all new sales?

2. How would you go about implementing such a program with the guns that are already out there?

 

[Harambe]

^Absolutely missing the point of the whole discussion. Nevertheless, I did get a good laugh from you managing to be both condescending and clueless in the confines of a single statement. So, thanks for that...



I had trouble figuring out exactly what you're trying to say here, Roach. I mean, I get the basic gist of it, but I don't follow how you got there...

Cataloging ballistics patterns may seem reasonable, on the face of it, but I have two questions about it:

1. How much extra time, money, and manpower is involved, even to keep such records just for all new sales?

2. How would you go about implementing such a program with the guns that are already out there?

1. It would cost a lot. Like I said, I don't have a good answer here. There isn't one. But I would start by making the gun manufacturers create and keep this information before the sale of said firearms, the bulk of the burden is then put on them which ofcourse is dropped down to the purchaser instead of the government. Electronic data storage, after the initial cost or purchasing equipment, is relatively cheap in the grand scheme of what we're working with.

2. Purely attrition, which really sucks given that Guns don't exactly have an expiration date. Start with letters to every gun owner on a state by state basis asking them to bring them in to get tested, perhaps giving them a small tax deduction per weapon. Then see where we stand. After that, send some stronger letters, or perhaps warn of tax penalties if they don't bring them in to register. From that point set a date and say "If we catch you with xxxxx numbered weapon, we will confiscate it and fine you."

The answers to implementing this are terrible. The question ends up do we really believe that implementing this will justify the cost? There's value to it, yes, but is the cost of not implementing something too much? I'm not sure.

 

[Stoked]

1. It would cost a lot. Like I said, I don't have a good answer here. There isn't one. But I would start by making the gun manufacturers create and keep this information before the sale of said firearms, the bulk of the burden is then put on them which ofcourse is dropped down to the purchaser instead of the government. Electronic data storage, after the initial cost or purchasing equipment, is relatively cheap in the grand scheme of what we're working with.

2. Purely attrition, which really sucks given that Guns don't exactly have an expiration date. Start with letters to every gun owner on a state by state basis asking them to bring them in to get tested, perhaps giving them a small tax deduction per weapon. Then see where we stand. After that, send some stronger letters, or perhaps warn of tax penalties if they don't bring them in to register. From that point set a date and say "If we catch you with xxxxx numbered weapon, we will confiscate it and fine you."

The answers to implementing this are terrible. The question ends up do we really believe that implementing this will justify the cost? There's value to it, yes, but is the cost of not implementing something too much? I'm not sure.

Why? What is the purpose? How will knowing how many weapons a person owns stop shootings? It wont stop it.

The only reason that information needs to be known is if there are plans to confiscate them. I am not saying there are but there is no justifiable reason to create that database in the first place.

 

[Revolution 9]

Getting rid of all guns is not the goal. Being reasonable about the situation is. Some people are just incapable of having this discussion.
I deal with a lot of them in the military community. "Are we going to ban knifes, and forks, because they can kill people too". "Jesus would
support people having weapons, he used violence to get things done". "We can't change it, so why bother".
Some people seem to get really defensive, and suddenly act like this situation is unsolvable so just keep it as is.

We have a lot of guns on the street. Should we allow everything? Obviously whatever move we make will take time.
It's a difficult complex situation that people are extremely passionate about. I don't want to own a weapon ever, just not my thing.
I do respect the rights, and wishes of others. Where do we draw the line though?

I think the goal should be improving the situation. Making it harder to get certain weapons, and doing everything in our power
to get some of those AR-15 type rifles off the streets. Tax breaks, double the price of purchase on a trade in, any incentives to
get these numbers down. Giving people less access to these weapons is a start.

 

[Harambe]

Why? What is the purpose? How will knowing how many weapons a person owns stop shootings? It wont stop it.

The only reason that information needs to be known is if there are plans to confiscate them. I am not saying there are but there is no justifiable reason to create that database in the first place.

True and False.

False, in that the information out there about the firearms are there to prove it was said firearm that would have committed a violent crime.

It only becomes true when after it was identified that such firearm fired that bullet, we sure would go and collect it.

We probably wouldn't be able to say for sure it was this gun that fired this bullet, but it would further a probable cause request and give just that little extra amount of evidence a judge would need to issue a warrant to collect a gun/search a property if we already knew firing pattern and ballistics report match X citizen's gun within 1% of what was found at the scene of the crime.

 

[Stoked]

True and False.

False, in that the information out there about the firearms are there to prove it was said firearm that would have committed a violent crime.

It only becomes true when after it was identified that such firearm fired that bullet, we sure would go and collect it.

We probably wouldn't be able to say for sure it was this gun that fired this bullet, but it would further a probable cause request and give just that little extra amount of evidence a judge would need to issue a warrant to collect a gun/search a property if we already knew firing pattern and ballistics report match X citizen's gun within 1% of what was found at the scene of the crime.

They can prove what firearm it was without that. The look at the markings on the bullet.

The huge potential down fall is not worth the benefit of something they can all ready do.

 

[Stoked]

Getting rid of all guns is not the goal. Being reasonable about the situation is. Some people are just incapable of having this discussion.
I deal with a lot of them in the military community. "Are we going to ban knifes, and forks, because they can kill people too". "Jesus would
support people having weapons, he used violence to get things done". "We can't change it, so why bother".
Some people seem to get really defensive, and suddenly act like this situation is unsolvable so just keep it as is.

We have a lot of guns on the street. Should we allow everything? Obviously whatever move we make will take time.
It's a difficult complex situation that people are extremely passionate about. I don't want to own a weapon ever, just not my thing.
I do respect the rights, and wishes of others. Where do we draw the line though?

I think the goal should be improving the situation. Making it harder to get certain weapons, and doing everything in our power
to get some of those AR-15 type rifles off the streets. Tax breaks, double the price of purchase on a trade in, any incentives to
get these numbers down. Giving people less access to these weapons is a start.

I don't think less access is needed. It is already controlled. If you want to offer incentives for turning them in than that's fine. I'm fine with the market determining the price though.

 

[Harambe]

They can prove what firearm it was without that. The look at the markings on the bullet.

The huge potential down fall is not worth the benefit of something they can all ready do.

I'm not sure I trust enough that we, as a country, would fall into that hole before an outright revolution took place.

 

[Revolution 9]

I don't think less access is needed. It is already controlled. If you want to offer incentives for turning them in than that's fine. I'm fine with the market determining the price though.

We drew the line somewhere before. Does it need to be re-examined now, ever?

Before you ask yourself how, or can we solve this....first you must ask are you ok with the current situation?

 

[LogGrad98]

How about requiring a GPS locator chip embedded in all new weapons, somewhere in the metal so it cannot be removed without destroying the functionality of the gun, like the one we had put in our dog that has now found her twice? Doable, passes the cost along to the consumer, can be use to monitor weapons in general or track known weapons or do location sweeps of felons who are not allowed to possess weapons. Idk, just a though. There is lots of opportunity to abuse this of course, but it might be a starting point.

Could also make far stricter consequences for people who use guns in crime, such as mandatory prison sentences with no opportunity for parole for at least 15 years or similar (pretty sure there is already something similar in some states, tltg) Or let's make a registry like the sex offender registry for people who commit crimes using guns.

The toughest thing about policing all of this is the sheer number of weapons already out there, which makes it nearly impossible to establish any course of action like this, unless we want to use martial law to round them all up, then we are justifying using them the way the founding fathers thought we might need to in the first place.

 

[Stoked]

We drew the line somewhere before. Does it need to be re-examined now, ever?

Before you ask yourself how, or can we solve this....first you must ask are you ok with the current situation?

Is there a problem? Obviously. But the problem is our society not guns or gun violence. They are mearly symptoms of the disease. It can be reevaluated and has been before (94 assault weapons ban). I just disagree that AR 15s and similar guns should be on the restricted side of that divide.

The glorification of the thug/gangster life, eroding of the family and poor education are the real problem. Men need to step up and be fathers. Stop teaching kids to be sheep in school and challenge the hell out of them. Make them use their creativity and imagination. Teach them to problem solve and adapt. You get them interested and excited about school and that will rub of on the parents. Communities need to drive the crap out of their neighborhoods. This notion that if you get involved in obvious crap that you are a busy body or holier than thou is foolish. Society will never change as long as people are comfortable being the way they are.

 

[LogGrad98]

Is there a problem? Obviously. But the problem is our society not guns or gun violence. They are mearly symptoms of the disease. It can be reevaluated and has been before (94 assault weapons ban). I just disagree that AR 15s and similar guns should be on the restricted side of that divide.

I hunt varmints with it, cereal. And coyotes.

 

[Stoked]

How about requiring a GPS locator chip embedded in all new weapons, somewhere in the metal so it cannot be removed without destroying the functionality of the gun, like the one we had put in our dog that has now found her twice? Doable, passes the cost along to the consumer, can be use to monitor weapons in general or track known weapons or do location sweeps of felons who are not allowed to possess weapons. Idk, just a though. There is lots of opportunity to abuse this of course, but it might be a starting point.

Could also make far stricter consequences for people who use guns in crime, such as mandatory prison sentences with no opportunity for parole for at least 15 years or similar (pretty sure there is already something similar in some states, tltg) Or let's make a registry like the sex offender registry for people who commit crimes using guns.

The toughest thing about policing all of this is the sheer number of weapons already out there, which makes it nearly impossible to establish any course of action like this, unless we want to use martial law to round them all up, then we are justifying using them the way the founding fathers thought we might need to in the first place.

For that to really mean something you need to change prison. No more cable tv, much more work. You are their as punishment and it should be harsh and difficult. It should make you never want to go back. Tent city AZ...

 

[LogGrad98]

For that to really mean something you need to change prison. No more cable tv, much more work. You are their as punishment and it should be harsh and difficult. It should make you never want to go back. Tent city AZ...

Well I agree with this regardless of the gun control situation. Prison should not be a resort in any way shape or form. I like the idea of prisons providing for things like education and personal development, but get rid of the gym equipment, cable or sat tv, movies, games, anything like that. They can read all they want, maybe even offer classes to get a GED or help get a degree, and counseling should be available in some way, but that should be about it. Let them participate in activities that might help them re-enter society in a meaningful way, not just as a hulk with prison tats and connections.

 

[Stoked]

Well I agree with this regardless of the gun control situation. Prison should not be a resort in any way shape or form. I like the idea of prisons providing for things like education and personal development, but get rid of the gym equipment, cable or sat tv, movies, games, anything like that. They can read all they want, maybe even offer classes to get a GED or help get a degree, and counseling should be available in some way, but that should be about it. Let them participate in activities that might help them re-enter society in a meaningful way, not just as a hulk with prison tats and connections.

I completely agree.

 

[♪alt13]

Well I agree with this regardless of the gun control situation. Prison should not be a resort in any way shape or form. I like the idea of prisons providing for things like education and personal development, but get rid of the gym equipment, cable or sat tv, movies, games, anything like that. They can read all they want, maybe even offer classes to get a GED or help get a degree, and counseling should be available in some way, but that should be about it. Let them participate in activities that might help them re-enter society in a meaningful way, not just as a hulk with prison tats and connections.

I think we put too many different types of offenders into one system. I find it disturbing that the person that kicks a dog, the person that commits a sexual assualt, and the person that sells pot all get labeled a felon.

We should create a pariah class of crimes above and beyond felony these people belong in a punitive prison.

I do think that the remainder of felons in our system(the ones that haven't committed unpardonable crimes)have just made a series of poor decisions that have had a negative impact on their character. These people belong in a corrections facility.

 

[LogGrad98]

I think we put too many different types of offenders into one system. I find it disturbing that the person that kicks a dog, the person that commits a sexual assualt, and the person that sells pot all get labeled a felon.

We should create a pariah class of crimes above and beyond felony these people belong in a punitive prison.

I do think that the remainder of felons in our system(the ones that haven't committed unpardonable crimes)have just made a series of poor decisions that have had a negative impact on their character. These people belong in a corrections facility.

I like the idea. The cost is a huge hurdle. Maybe we could make it a graduation system. Perform certain things and you can cut time off your sentence, and you get more privileges. The sentencing can be the same, but if you are a rapist you have to do more "stuff" to become eligible for parole than if you got in a bar fight or were caught with some doobage, or to get to watch TV or play video games, or use gym equipment, etc. And the amount of time a sentence can be reduced would be determined by what you do to improve. Complete your GED could cut 2 years off a 5 year sentence, or 5 off a 15, or something like that. Complete counseling or learn a trade gets more of a reduction to a predetermined minimum (cannot go below 2 years for a felony, for example, or cannot go below 50% of the original sentence to account for harder crimes). Something like that may be workable and the people who don't want to put in the effort just spend their allotted time.

 

[moevillini]

Seems to me that part of the problem in the whole gun rights/gun ownership debate is that gun owners and advocates for gun ownership are the only ones who would have to give something up if stricter ownership laws were in effect - this is not something that can easily be turned into a "quid pro quo" situation where each side gives up a little bit of what they want to get to a compromise.

I guess that's true about a lot of the intractable issues in our society. I think it's easier to take steps to try to find a compromise position if each side has a little something to lose. Or maybe I'm just talking nonsense.

 

[♪alt13]

I like the idea. The cost is a huge hurdle. Maybe we could make it a graduation system. Perform certain things and you can cut time off your sentence, and you get more privileges. The sentencing can be the same, but if you are a rapist you have to do more "stuff" to become eligible for parole than if you got in a bar fight or were caught with some doobage, or to get to watch TV or play video games, or use gym equipment, etc. And the amount of time a sentence can be reduced would be determined by what you do to improve. Complete your GED could cut 2 years off a 5 year sentence, or 5 off a 15, or something like that. Complete counseling or learn a trade gets more of a reduction to a predetermined minimum (cannot go below 2 years for a felony, for example, or cannot go below 50% of the original sentence to account for harder crimes). Something like that may be workable and the people who don't want to put in the effort just spend their allotted time.

If we overhauled the entire criminal justice system overnight then yes it would be costly. I suggest(to start) we simply create this class of crimes. The only cost would be to tradition. We all recognize that there are more than six degrees of crime and that there are definitely more than three degrees that deserve prison time. We would give judges, juries, prosecutors, and most importantly legislators more options.
I first thought that this would be a good idea when the Utah state legislature enhanced animal cruelty to a class 3 felony. From one perspective animal cruelty is definitely worse than having an ounce of marijuana(class A misdemeanor) but from another it is definitely not as bad as aggravated assault(level 3 felony).

 

[Stoked]

If we overhauled the entire criminal justice system overnight then yes it would be costly. I suggest(to start) we simply create this class of crimes. The only cost would be to tradition. We all recognize that there are more than six degrees of crime and that there are definitely more than three degrees that deserve prison time. We would give judges, juries, prosecutors, and most importantly legislators more options.
I first thought that this would be a good idea when the Utah state legislature enhanced animal cruelty to a class 3 felony. From one perspective animal cruelty is definitely worse than having an ounce of marijuana(class A misdemeanor) but from another it is definitely not as bad as aggravated assault(level 3 felony).

Depends on the case. If it is severe enough than yeah I can consider them the same.