|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#291
|
|||
|
|||
Ever been bikejacked?
Raoul Duke wrote:
"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote" Would you rather be beaten black and blue, or shot? Neither. But if the end result is death, what difference does it make? If someone is able to beat you black and blue, he can kill you just a dead as if he had shot you. When it comes to homicide, there's a big difference between "can" and "does". Data reveals the difference. Domestic violence incidents that involve a firearm result in death at far greater rates than those that don't: "In a study of family and intimate assaults for the city of Atlanta, Georgia, in 1984, firearm-associated family and intimate assaults were 12 times more likely to result in death than non-firearm associated assaults between family and intimates." - Linda Saltzman, PhD, et al., "Weapon Involvement and Injury Outcomes in Family and Intimate Assaults," JAMA 267, no. 22 (1992): 3043-3047. -- terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/ |
Ads |
#292
|
|||
|
|||
Ever been bikejacked?
wrote: Forever? You want to pay for keeping some stickup artist in prison for 70 years? Or do you think it is preferable to summarily jail anyone accused of domestic violence /wife beating until they can have a hearing, rather than leaving them free but restricting their access to firearms for two weeks or an evidentiary hearing, whichever comes first (current CT law)? Or just do nothing? Violant crime is a young man's game. It's unnecessary to warehouse offenders in perpetuity. What I am proposing is that we simply begin to impose sentences that are sufficient to reduce violent crime by 1) making a 10 year sentence mean 10 years in prison (in most States a 10 year sentence is in reality a 3 year sentence with parole) and 2) lock the most egregious offenders up for a sufficiently long enough time that they are just too old to cut it as criminals. Age 40 would be about right for most of the criminals I know. As for the rest, how on earth you make the leap from "lock up violent criminals" to "do nothing" is a mystery. And, in this nonperfect world, in the absence of locking the violent criminals up forever: when they do get out, you feel it is better to continue the current process of allowing them to obtain a firearm from a private sale as opposed to barring them from doing so? I'm not convinced that informing all you lawabiding gun owners I keep reading about that it will now be illegal to sell one of your guns to a person without a background check proving he is not a recently paroled violent criminal, and providing an easy means to do such a background check, is 'feel good fluff'. Or are you saying that you law abiding gun owners intend to sell the guns to these guys anyway? What you describe as the "current process" is already illegal. The criminal knows he's not supposed to buy the gun but guess what? He does it anyway. Why? Because it's a tool of his trade and because he knows that even if he's caught with it he'll get a figurative slap on the wrist. As for requiring private citizens to perform background checks on other private citizens in order to conduct a private sale, great. Now if you'll simply explain how that system will be paid for without using resources that could be used to actually arrest violent offenders, who will administer that system, how abuses of the database required will be safeguarded against, how any violations will be enforced, and most importantly how it will accomplish any more than actually *locking up* the bad guys, I'm all ears. Of course even if such a system could do all that, it would still be "feel good" fluff because the dumbest criminal out there already knows the way around it. It's called straw purchasing. Regards, Bob Hunt |
#293
|
|||
|
|||
Ever been bikejacked?
wrote: A meaningless distinction. An angry person *using* a knife isn't going to be capable of the same havoc as an angry person *using* a gun. ---snip--- Attend a few autopsies before leaping to this conclusion, Frank because you are quite simply misinformed. It's silly to pretend the object makes no difference. ---snip--- Re-read what I wrote, Frank. What I said was, "My point was and is that the danger isn't posed by the inanimate object. The source of the danger is the person *using* the object.". You and I agree that cars can be deadly. Is your car, driven by you, as dangerous as the car being driven by the drunken 19 yr old? Again, the danger is posed by the user, not the object. Forget campaigns to "get guns off the streets". Remove the violent offenders instead. That's fine, too. But they're not mutually exclusive. How much discussion have you heard or participated in about abolishing parole? Name any NGO whose sole purpose is to lobby for restricting probation to misdemeanors. In the real world we all tend to look for the single "magic bullet", the easy fix. Which sounds easier, "Let's get the guns off the streets" or "Let's overhaul our criminal justice sytem to ensure that violent offenders are removed from society"? IOW, as much as we might wish otherwise, in the real world the two *are* mutually exclusive. Regards, Bob Hunt |
#294
|
|||
|
|||
Ever been bikejacked?
|
#295
|
|||
|
|||
Ever been bikejacked?
Hunrobe wrote:
wrote: A meaningless distinction. An angry person *using* a knife isn't going to be capable of the same havoc as an angry person *using* a gun. Attend a few autopsies before leaping to this conclusion, Frank because you are quite simply misinformed. Oh, good grief. Look, in the extreme case, an angry person using a knife could cut his victim up into 1/2" cubes. An angry person using a gun could riddle the body with bullets until it was mush. Both are thorough havoc, but neither is in any way typical or realistic. Your vague hints about autopsies won't cut it. It doesn't rebut what I said about the ability to flee a punch or a knife. It doesn't rebut what Terry Morse posted: ""In a study of family and intimate assaults for the city of Atlanta, Georgia, in 1984, firearm-associated family and intimate assaults were 12 times more likely to result in death than non-firearm associated assaults between family and intimates." - Linda Saltzman, PhD, et al., "Weapon Involvement and Injury Outcomes in Family and Intimate Assaults," JAMA 267, no. 22 (1992): 3043-3047." And again, if you _really_ think knives are as dangerous as guns, you'd leave your service revolver behind and carry a Bowie knife (or perhaps pen knife) the next time you're out on the job. Do you? Why not? It's silly to pretend the object makes no difference. ---snip--- Re-read what I wrote, Frank. What I said was, "My point was and is that the danger isn't posed by the inanimate object. The source of the danger is the person *using* the object.". Again, a meaningless distinction. It leads to absurdities like selling hand grenades on street corner stands. Forget campaigns to "get guns off the streets". Remove the violent offenders instead. That's fine, too. But they're not mutually exclusive. How much discussion have you heard or participated in about abolishing parole? Name any NGO whose sole purpose is to lobby for restricting probation to misdemeanors. These are discussion groups. When the OP mentioned a near bikejacking, several responders posted the immediate "solution" of carrying a gun. Therefore, that's what we're discussing. Do you really believe that abolishing parole is the solution? If so, it's up to you to bring that into the discussion - and I'll submit that you should have done it LONG before now! As it is, you're mentioning it only to attempt to support a position that "guns aren't dangerous." Personally, I think you can make a case for abolishing parole. But if that proposition comes attached to a "guns aren't dangerous" platform, people will never take it seriously. They'll figure you're just a gun nut grasping at straws. -- Frank Krygowski [To reply, omit what's between "at" and "cc"] |
#296
|
|||
|
|||
Ever been bikejacked?
wrote: On the other hand, the guy who sells him the gun just shrugs; 'Not my problem'. I'm sure there are people that would do that. I'm equally certain that does not describe the majority of people. Aren't we already doing background checks on purchases from licensed dealers? We just have to extend it to private sellers. You obviously don't have the vaguest idea of how a background check system works. Doctors write prescriptions for drugs all the time yet you and I can't because we don't have our own DEA prescriber numbers. It's the same with background checks. In order to request that check the dealer must provide his FFL number. Several years ago the Clinton administration made political hay out of pricing so-called "kitchen FFL dealers" out of business. Are you suggesting that was a mistake? It's called straw purchasing. And is already illegal. Exactly, yet it still happens. The question that remains then is why you think criminals will obey the law you favor while disregarding the other laws that are already on the books. For the criminal, it all goes back to penalties. Make the penalties for a particular crime severe enough and he won't commit that crime. Pass yet another piece of "feel good" fluff and you won't change a darned thing. Regards, Bob Hunt |
#297
|
|||
|
|||
Ever been bikejacked?
|
#298
|
|||
|
|||
Ever been bikejacked?
Bob Hunt wrote in part:
... What I am proposing is that we simply begin to impose sentences that are sufficient to reduce violent crime by 1) making a 10 year sentence mean 10 years in prison (in most States a 10 year sentence is in reality a 3 year sentence with parole) and 2) lock the most egregious offenders up for a sufficiently long enough time that they are just too old to cut it as criminals. Age 40 would be about right for most of the criminals I know. ... I'm all for that plan. Of course, that means we will have to let out many of the nonviolent drug offenders in order to make room. There simply isn't enough money available to go off madly building prisons. Robert |
#299
|
|||
|
|||
Ever been bikejacked?
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|