Captain Hi-Top 791 Report post Posted January 17, 2013 Read the article. Very interesting, decriminalizing not legalizing seems to have worked there and could work here so it might be worth a try. That would in turn lower our prison population (dramically if the numbers cited are correct), thus allowing more time and effort into rehabing these violent offenders of all kinds. Not sure what the success rate would be at that, but more time and effort would theoritically reduce repeat violent crimes. That's kind of the point I made yesterday that lead to your anecdotal slippery slope of the drug wasteland that we would become. :shard: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
For the love of the game 56 Report post Posted January 17, 2013 That's kind of the point I made yesterday that lead to your anecdotal slippery slope of the drug wasteland that we would become. :shard:/> Right, see I have the most unique ability to stick one foot in my mouth while jamming the other end up my... Really, though the key would be decriminalizing it, which in turn could lead to a higher rehab rate for the violent and non violent type. Any ideas how to slow down the first time violent crimes? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Captain Hi-Top 791 Report post Posted January 17, 2013 Not a clue. We have a violent culture in this country, and we've solved a lot of conflict using violence and fire arms. I don't know how you go about changing the course of a culture in a case like that. Maybe a drastically reduced prison population helps them focus more on rehabilitation, but that doesn't change the underlying issues. You are treating the symptoms, not the cause. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
For the love of the game 56 Report post Posted January 17, 2013 Not a clue. We have a violent culture in this country, and we've solved a lot of conflict using violence and fire arms. I don't know how you go about changing the course of a culture in a case like that. Maybe a drastically reduced prison population helps them focus more on rehabilitation, but that doesn't change the underlying issues. You are treating the symptoms, not the cause. Closing the "gun show loop hole" which apparently allows people in some states to go in and by a gun without a background check (if I am understanding that correct) could at least reduce some access they have to the guns, but they could still get them by breaking in an stealing one from a home. So that again only limits ways to get a gun to commit a crime and does not eliminate access. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Secretly Space Jesus 670 Report post Posted January 17, 2013 I'm not sure how ok I am with the idea of "Well, they'll find a way to get a gun, so lets not worry about making it more difficult." A certain kind of person will commit a crime no matter how much deterrent you put in front of them. Of course that's true. But you put locks on your door to protect yourself from honest people being tempted, not the dishonest ones who want to rob you blind anyway. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
For the love of the game 56 Report post Posted January 17, 2013 I'm not sure how ok I am with the idea of "Well, they'll find a way to get a gun, so lets not worry about making it more difficult." A certain kind of person will commit a crime no matter how much deterrent you put in front of them. Of course that's true. But you put locks on your door to protect yourself from honest people being tempted, not the dishonest ones who want to rob you blind anyway. I'm not ok with that either. Reducing the ways a person can get a gun for a crime in helps but a will not elimate it. I would think it is possible to pass a strick background check with the intent to use the gun for a crime. I also put locks on my doors and windows for that matter to slow down the dishonest ones. In the case where I am home when this happens, that gives me the extra minute to call call 911 and get my gun (if I cannot get my self and family away from harm). Obviously there are some that would be coming to commit violent crime as well. Oh, and in the case were I am not home, maybe the extra chance that someone sees them breaking in and perhaps gives the police a chance to bust them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Captain Hi-Top 791 Report post Posted January 17, 2013 I'm not sure how ok I am with the idea of "Well, they'll find a way to get a gun, so lets not worry about making it more difficult." A certain kind of person will commit a crime no matter how much deterrent you put in front of them. Of course that's true. But you put locks on your door to protect yourself from honest people being tempted, not the dishonest ones who want to rob you blind anyway. I agree, and that's why I've always been in favor of background checks, even for private sales. However, I did think of something to replace background checks for sales, because I think that has a pretty big flaw. Currently, you could pass a background check, purchase your firearms, and then later have a change in your life that would cause you to fail a background check, but too bad, you already made your purchase. If you moved to a licensing platform, where you needed a federal license to own firearms, and built the background check into the license, you could perform the background check at renewal times, identifying people who should no longer own firearms, and revoke their ability to continue to own firearms. Along with this, you would need to issue individual license/registration for every firearm at the time of sale or transfer of ownership. You can only own a firearm if you are currently licensed by the government, and every firearm you own must be registered. If you lose your license at any time, you would have to transfer (or sell) ownership to a licensed person or business, or store your firearms at a licensed facility under the acknowledgement that you can not retrieve them until you can acquire a license, or ownership has been transferred. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marc Acres 3:16 418 Report post Posted January 17, 2013 I'm not sure how ok I am with the idea of "Well, they'll find a way to get a gun, so lets not worry about making it more difficult." A certain kind of person will commit a crime no matter how much deterrent you put in front of them. Of course that's true. But you put locks on your door to protect yourself from honest people being tempted, not the dishonest ones who want to rob you blind anyway. I agree but then don't we already have locks on the doors when it comes to guns? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
For the love of the game 56 Report post Posted January 17, 2013 I agree, and that's why I've always been in favor of background checks, even for private sales. However, I did think of something to replace background checks for sales, because I think that has a pretty big flaw. Currently, you could pass a background check, purchase your firearms, and then later have a change in your life that would cause you to fail a background check, but too bad, you already made your purchase. If you moved to a licensing platform, where you needed a federal license to own firearms, and built the background check into the license, you could perform the background check at renewal times, identifying people who should no longer own firearms, and revoke their ability to continue to own firearms. Along with this, you would need to issue individual license/registration for every firearm at the time of sale or transfer of ownership. You can only own a firearm if you are currently licensed by the government, and every firearm you own must be registered. If you lose your license at any time, you would have to transfer (or sell) ownership to a licensed person or business, or store your firearms at a licensed facility under the acknowledgement that you can not retrieve them until you can acquire a license, or ownership has been transferred. Interesting idea, but what about keeping this all on the state level? Maybe having the states linked together somehow to track this? I am not a big fan of the federal government having there hands all over everything. I know the background checks are done at the feb level but think they should end there involvement there. Also, is it even logistically possible track every gun? Dont have the exact number and I could be way off but isnt there like 88 guns per 100 people? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheREALBrooksThompson 157 Report post Posted January 17, 2013 I don't see any way the NRA would ever agree to a licensing program. That falls right into their narrative of the government taking away your guns. It just shifts it a little bit into "the government will take away your guns if they don't deem you worthy of owning a gun." They're already whipping people into a frenzy and encouraging them to prepare for a civil war on this issue. This is going to get a whole lot uglier before any meaningful solution is reached. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Captain Hi-Top 791 Report post Posted January 18, 2013 Sure, you could do it at the state level. As far as the NRA goes, I think you could get enough support from the general population, for an idea that aims to keep guns out of the hands of mentally unstable people, that the NRA would either back down, or out right fail to influence things enough to stop it. You wouldn't be banning assault weapons, nor high capacity magazines. Hell, you wouldn't even be taking away someone's right to own fire arms, only restricting their access to them if they have an issue that presents a threat to the public. Also, in those cases, it should be people outside the influence of the government that makes the call when someone is found to be unfit. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Captain Hi-Top 791 Report post Posted January 18, 2013 This does present a big issue though. Forcing someone to turn their weapons into a holding facility could result in some very volatile situations. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites