Legislators are floundering.

[DaveTN]

Now that one of their own has been targeted and shot during a mass murder they feel the need to act.

Shooting people is against the law. You can’t make it more against the law.

Drugs are outlawed and I don’t use drugs or know any drug dealers, but I bet if I wanted to find some this afternoon I could. The war on drugs…. How’s that working out for us? Killers will get guns even if they are outlawed.

What was missing was people that had the ability and the tools to stop the threat. Would the shooter still have shot some people? Sure…. 3…4…5; but probably not 19.

We all know the answer to this problem; and it’s not new laws or outlawing guns. I just wish our legislators would use some common sense.

[Punisher84]

Amen man. It's kind of a sad statement, but the truth is the only way to stop violence is with violence once it has reached that level. Unfortunately, there are still people who think the world is all puppies and unicorns.

[aquaman67]

Well sure,

You know there were never any murders before the invention of firearms...

[Dolomite_supafly]

Well sure,

You know there were never any murders before the invention of firearms...

SSSH!!! We do not need it to get like England where knives are outlawed.

The biggest problem is a bad guy knows their sentences are going to be light if they are caught. If every criminal knew there was a VERY GOOD chance they would be shot or killed if they attempted to hurt another then I suspect a lot of them would not attempt it. It will not help curb the crazies, like what happened in Arizona, from doing what they do but for most criminals it would probably curb their appetite to rob, rape, or murder. Also, I believe a victim who is shooting to remove a threat should not be held accountable for his actions so long as the criminal is the only one hurt. Adrenalin makes your mind do strange things or see things that may not be there and because of this there should be great latitude applied when judging a victim's actions.

As far as sentences go, first offense should not be allowed to plea out for probation. They should do some actual time in jail on their first offense. Hopefully this would let them see how bad jail is before they go to the next step in the criminal career. Allowing a criminal to plea is never for the benifit of the criminal, it benefits the DA who can brag about his conviction rate and to save the cost of a trial. If I were in charge, which would likely never happen, the only plea a person could do was a gurantee of not receiving the maximum sentence for their crime and that there was no way of knowing what the actual sentence would be other than it will not be the maximum. If they chose to go to trial, instead of taking the plea to receive a sentence that is guranteed less than max, they would receive the maximum sentence if they were found guilty.

Dolomite

[vontar]

Dolomite_supafly, I would vote for that.

[JAB]

As far as sentences go, first offense should not be allowed to plea out for probation. They should do some actual time in jail on their first offense. Hopefully this would let them see how bad jail is before they go to the next step in the criminal career.

Dolomite

I am of two minds with regard to that statement. On the one hand, I think you have a very valid point, depending on the crime and the person's history, etc. It does get old hearing of some scumbag killing someone while out on probation for armed robbery or attempted murder. On the other hand, too often jail/prison seems to be little more a training ground for thugs. For some of them, it's like going to school to learn to be a better thug and sending them there is about like throwing Brer Rabbit in the brier patch.

[mikegideon]

My feeling has been that if Gabby would have had competent, armed security at her side, the number of victims could have been as few as zero. I have been arguing with liberals since this happened. Here's a message I sent to one today...

Another terrorist bombing in Russia... should we:

A. Ban explosives?

B. Ban terrorism?

C. Ban Muslims?

D. Find the terrorists and kill them?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Too multiple choice, Mike. Their head will explode.

[mikegideon]

Too multiple choice, Mike. Their head will explode.

Well, there has been some discussion, trying to determine if it's really a Muslim, but they haven't picked a letter yet. Recon we should take their keys away before they hurt themselves?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Absolutely!

[mikegideon]

Absolutely!

Damn... I hate to admit you were right. I DO have a better muzzle brake than you, though

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I think I will be off Sunday. We may have to see about that:D

[Rightwinger]

You two can't keep talking like that or we will think another bromance has erupted!

[mikegideon]

You two can't keep talking like that or we will think another bromance has erupted!

Don't worry. He's too skinny for me. I like big ole boys, like you

[Rightwinger]

[Guest 6.8 AR]

There's a lesson to be learned here. I just don't know

what.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest Grudgie]

Actually, outlawing firearms makes it incredibly difficult to obtain them. If you outlaw firearms nobody buys them and therefore nobody makes them. People can still 'kill' though the quanity they can kill is reduced considerably.

However firearms are necessary for the security of a free state even if a few people die due to irresponsibility, hate, or insane crazy people.

[Punisher84]

Actually, outlawing firearms makes it incredibly difficult to obtain them. If you outlaw firearms nobody buys them and therefore nobody makes them. People can still 'kill' though the quanity they can kill is reduced considerably.

However firearms are necessary for the security of a free state even if a few people die due to irresponsibility, hate, or insane crazy people.

Someone has never been to England...or Australia.

[Guest Grudgie]

I'm not going to start a debate here, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that more guns=more gun deaths.

"The level of gun ownership world-wide is directly related to murder and suicide rates and specifically to the level of death by gunfire."

International Correlation between gun ownership and rates of homicide and suicide.' Professor Martin Killias, May 1993.

[mikegideon]

I'm not going to start a debate here, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that more guns=more gun deaths.

"The level of gun ownership world-wide is directly related to murder and suicide rates and specifically to the level of death by gunfire."

International Correlation between gun ownership and rates of homicide and suicide.' Professor Martin Killias, May 1993.

WTF???

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Actually, you're right. A rocket scientist might see through that. Several other professionals

have.

Go ahead, start the debate. It'll be friendly. You just need some learning.

[Guest Grudgie]

My appologies evryone, I suppose the concept is to hard to understand. Regardless of whether it is right or wrong, Mass producing guns and selling them to the public will translate to irresponsible use.

Agian, I believe guns should be mass produced and made available to citizenry, but I do not try and justify my belief to make myself feel better. Are 1000 gun deaths a year worth a lower crime rate? That depends on how much you value a life.

[Mike.357]

Actually, outlawing firearms makes it incredibly difficult to obtain them. If you outlaw firearms nobody buys them and therefore nobody makes them. People can still 'kill' though the quanity they can kill is reduced considerably.

However firearms are necessary for the security of a free state even if a few people die due to irresponsibility, hate, or insane crazy people.

you do know that in Afghanistan AK47's are made in crude shops and in caves. There are millions of guns. Make guns illegal and the bad guys are not going to turn them in. Heck a lot of law abiding people will not turn them in, of course making the law abiding criminals.

The cost of freedom is not free. If 1000 people have to die so the law abiding can defend themselves then so be it.

[mikegideon]

Well, I guess you're right. If there were no guns, there would be no gun deaths. Intellectuals have proven that with the use of advanced mathmatics. The anti-gun folks believe it too, and have set it as a goal. FWIW, most anti's are liberals too.

Now, liberals will be very quick to tell you that it's impossible to round up 20 million illegal aliens (which are already illegal), but it makes sense to try to control 300 million guns, if they could only make them illegal too. I have a problem with that logic. Since your average illegal alien is much larger, and much easier to spot than your average gun, how can they expect to round up all the guns.

Guns will always be in this country. The real question... Do you allow people to defend themselves from the ones that are already here?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Criminals seem to be always able to obtain firearms. That law that would ban them would just

send people elsewhere to get them.

You can outlaw anything, but a law has to have reason before it can be just. There is no justice

in outlawing something just for the sake of it. People have the right to defend themselves. You

wish to devolve the game back to rock throwing or archery? When are they going to get outlawed?

Where do you stop?

Klatu barada nikto!