Political Crossfire Forums

[mathurin]

in another thread someone asked gun owners what they suggest
so i had some thoughts, the gun control person probably was thinking registration and outlawing off-the-books sales

but i have another idea

place major penalties on owning an illegal firearm
including, but not limited too, barring the individual from owning firearms ever again, and major jail time

however as a precursor i want an amnesty period for stolen firearms, a time during which all gun owners can have the serial numbers of their guns checked, stolen guns will be returned to owners but no charges will be filed, if caught with a stolen firearm after that, your ass is grass

this would destroy the market for stolen/illegal firearms, those who have bought questionable firearms at gun shows, i know, it would suck to lose that gun, but wouldnt it be worth it to know that there is almost no chance that someone will steal your gun in the future because they will have less chance to sell it

does anybody have a problem with this?

[britboy]

mathurin wrote: in another thread someone asked gun owners what they suggest
so i had some thoughts, the gun control person probably was thinking registration and outlawing off-the-books sales

but i have another idea

place major penalties on owning an illegal firearm
including, but not limited too, barring the individual from owning firearms ever again, and major jail time

however as a precursor i want an amnesty period for stolen firearms, a time during which all gun owners can have the serial numbers of their guns checked, stolen guns will be returned to owners but no charges will be filed, if caught with a stolen firearm after that, your ass is grass

this would destroy the market for stolen/illegal firearms, those who have bought questionable firearms at gun shows, i know, it would suck to lose that gun, but wouldnt it be worth it to know that there is almost no chance that someone will steal your gun in the future because they will have less chance to sell it

does anybody have a problem with this?

There are already major penalties on owning an illegal firearm. 5 years minimum for owning a handgun.

Penalties don't really tend to work against criminals -- I'd go for a more proactive approach rather than reactive.

[Wolverine]

Of course they don't work, criminals do what they please, I am glad you finally realized this.

[britboy]

Wolverine wrote: Of course they don't work, criminals do what they please, I am glad you finally realized this.

Oh no I've always realised this.

A lot of people here just keep saying 'harsher prison sentences? Doesn't work -- then HARSHER? no? Then EVEN HARSHER'.

That kind of talk and you'll end up with 2m people in prison and crime rates not dropping.

I think you need more money put into social security, monitoring ex-prisoners, and the police service. Not spending more on more on keeping people in prison for longer and longer. It costs a bomb, but the really sad bit, is it doesn't actually seem to stop them going out and doing it again.

I wouldn't say criminals do as they please. I'd say they just come out with a different answer to the 'crime vs punishment vs chance of getting caught vs avoiding prison' formulation we all do.

[Wolverine]

Meh, social security should be abolished.

I never knew breaking the law wasn't "doing whatever you want". Criminals are law abiding, who knew.

[britboy]

Wolverine wrote: Meh, social security should be abolished.

I never knew breaking the law wasn't "doing whatever you want". Criminals are law abiding, who knew.

Well if social security was abolished I think you'd be able to argue the case for gun carrying more than ever. As even at one point in my life (unemployed) I'd have been forced into a few weeks of crime, basically to eat!

I believe if the state services are improved, even less people than currently would be involved in crime. It's all a question of where do you draw the line.

Abolishing it .. people are soon gonna start starving. And they say any population is only 2 meals away from revolution!!

[Wolverine]

I like the doomsday predictions.

Socialism = oppression.

[britboy]

Wolverine wrote: I like the doomsday predictions.

Socialism = oppression.

Absolute capatalism = Absolute anarchy.

(No taxes so no government so no police so no law so anarchy).

The trick I feel is to find a middle ground. My middle ground simply has very few/no people 'forced into crime because they can't eat'. They're not on drugs, they are completely normal Joe's who are hardworking .. they get made redundant. The government should pay for them and their families to eat. Otherwise, if I was Joe, I'm gonna take the food forcibly from some sucker!!

ps. I don't think a country currently exists that is as right wing as to let Joe starve anyway -- maybe some places in deepest Africa or something)

[Wolverine]

Show where I said I oppossed all taxes.

[britboy]

Wolverine wrote: Show where I said I oppossed all taxes.

I don't think you have said you opposed all taxes. If you have, I can't find it.

[airo]

britboy wrote: Wolverine wrote: Meh, social security should be abolished.

I never knew breaking the law wasn't "doing whatever you want". Criminals are law abiding, who knew.

Well if social security was abolished I think you'd be able to argue the case for gun carrying more than ever. As even at one point in my life (unemployed) I'd have been forced into a few weeks of crime, basically to eat!

I believe if the state services are improved, even less people than currently would be involved in crime. It's all a question of where do you draw the line.

Abolishing it .. people are soon gonna start starving. And they say any population is only 2 meals away from revolution!!

You're NEVER "forced" into victimizing others. You do so willingly, and, from the sounds of it, you would potentially do it gladly, "if you had to".

[perdidochas]

britboy wrote: Wolverine wrote: Of course they don't work, criminals do what they please, I am glad you finally realized this.

Oh no I've always realised this.

A lot of people here just keep saying 'harsher prison sentences? Doesn't work -- then HARSHER? no? Then EVEN HARSHER'.

That kind of talk and you'll end up with 2m people in prison and crime rates not dropping.

But since the 1990s, crime has been greatly reduced.

britboy wrote: I think you need more money put into social security, monitoring ex-prisoners, and the police service. Not spending more on more on keeping people in prison for longer and longer. It costs a bomb, but the really sad bit, is it doesn't actually seem to stop them going out and doing it again.

I wouldn't say criminals do as they please. I'd say they just come out with a different answer to the 'crime vs punishment vs chance of getting caught vs avoiding prison' formulation we all do.

[britboy]

airo wrote: britboy wrote: Wolverine wrote: Meh, social security should be abolished.

I never knew breaking the law wasn't "doing whatever you want". Criminals are law abiding, who knew.

Well if social security was abolished I think you'd be able to argue the case for gun carrying more than ever. As even at one point in my life (unemployed) I'd have been forced into a few weeks of crime, basically to eat!

I believe if the state services are improved, even less people than currently would be involved in crime. It's all a question of where do you draw the line.

Abolishing it .. people are soon gonna start starving. And they say any population is only 2 meals away from revolution!!

You're NEVER "forced" into victimizing others. You do so willingly, and, from the sounds of it, you would potentially do it gladly, "if you had to".

Nope, don't buy it.

I believe that people who are starving because of some reason, but then do something 'illegal' like stealing to feed their kids -- the baker could feel victimized as he has lost a loaf of bread.

In this situation I believe the person was forced inot victimizing the baker.

You're too used to having social security as a last resource. A lot of third world countries -- there is not safety net. Commit crime & victimise others, or watch your kids starve to death. Your choice. But not really a choice at all.

[airo]

britboy wrote: airo wrote: britboy wrote: Wolverine wrote: Meh, social security should be abolished.

I never knew breaking the law wasn't "doing whatever you want". Criminals are law abiding, who knew.

Well if social security was abolished I think you'd be able to argue the case for gun carrying more than ever. As even at one point in my life (unemployed) I'd have been forced into a few weeks of crime, basically to eat!

I believe if the state services are improved, even less people than currently would be involved in crime. It's all a question of where do you draw the line.

Abolishing it .. people are soon gonna start starving. And they say any population is only 2 meals away from revolution!!

You're NEVER "forced" into victimizing others. You do so willingly, and, from the sounds of it, you would potentially do it gladly, "if you had to".

Nope, don't buy it.

I believe that people who are starving because of some reason, but then do something 'illegal' like stealing to feed their kids -- the baker could feel victimized as he has lost a loaf of bread.

In this situation I believe the person was forced inot victimizing the baker.

You're too used to having social security as a last resource. A lot of third world countries -- there is not safety net. Commit crime & victimise others, or watch your kids starve to death. Your choice. But not really a choice at all.

And i don't buy that there is even a remotely significant number of thieves out there who are stealing "to put food on their children's table".

Now, if you changed out the last part of that to "to put heroin in their syringe", i might believe you.

And, in all fairness, we don't live in a third world country, and welfare is hardly a safety net. In fact, it's a crutch that people rely too heavily on. It trains the poor that they don't have to work for their money, and encourages them to be lazy.

Either way, a person's conditions do not justify theft. Period. What type of example is a father who steals food to feed his children at the end of the night? What is this teaching his kids? What does it say about his measure of a man?

I'm sorry, but your reasoning is extremely convoluted.

[private_citizen]

britboy wrote: Wolverine wrote: Meh, social security should be abolished.

I never knew breaking the law wasn't "doing whatever you want". Criminals are law abiding, who knew.

Well if social security was abolished I think you'd be able to argue the case for gun carrying more than ever. As even at one point in my life (unemployed) I'd have been forced into a few weeks of crime, basically to eat!

I believe if the state services are improved, even less people than currently would be involved in crime. It's all a question of where do you draw the line.

Abolishing it .. people are soon gonna start starving. And they say any population is only 2 meals away from revolution!!

I have been forced to work in fast food and in an hourly rate motel cleaning toilets to feed my kids, never once having to resort to a life of crime. McDonalds is ALWAYS hiring, I assure you of that.

WEEKS of crime? WEEKS?

You are just a criminal who likes to feel like a victim, typical. You are just to lazy to actually work for what you want, it is easier to steal.

[Jefferson]

britboy wrote: mathurin wrote: in another thread someone asked gun owners what they suggest
so i had some thoughts, the gun control person probably was thinking registration and outlawing off-the-books sales

but i have another idea

place major penalties on owning an illegal firearm
including, but not limited too, barring the individual from owning firearms ever again, and major jail time

however as a precursor i want an amnesty period for stolen firearms, a time during which all gun owners can have the serial numbers of their guns checked, stolen guns will be returned to owners but no charges will be filed, if caught with a stolen firearm after that, your ass is grass

this would destroy the market for stolen/illegal firearms, those who have bought questionable firearms at gun shows, i know, it would suck to lose that gun, but wouldnt it be worth it to know that there is almost no chance that someone will steal your gun in the future because they will have less chance to sell it

does anybody have a problem with this?

There are already major penalties on owning an illegal firearm. 5 years minimum for owning a handgun.

Penalties don't really tend to work against criminals -- I'd go for a more proactive approach rather than reactive.

Let me interpert for you.

Soft of crime.

[Snake]

Well, it's nice to see some suggestions on combating this dilema, but I don't feel penalties will work though. Criminals don't give a sh*t about the law, hence the title 'criminal'. An amnesty period won't do anything either, they'll just veiw it as a set-up and ignore it. It's like putting a picture of a cat on a mouse-trap

[TNBiologist]

Kamel wrote: Well, it's nice to see some suggestions on combating this dilema, but I don't feel penalties will work though. Criminals don't give a sh*t about the law, hence the title 'criminal'. An amnesty period won't do anything either, they'll just veiw it as a set-up and ignore it. It's like putting a picture of a cat on a mouse-trap

I would view the amnesty more fo rteh law-abidding. Give people a chance to run the serial numbers on guns they have bought off individuals to make sure they are not in possession of a stolen weapon. Also by doing so you negate the excuse of "but I didn't know it was stolen" if a person is caught in a crime with a stolen gun.

[mathurin]

Kamel wrote: Well, it's nice to see some suggestions on combating this dilema, but I don't feel penalties will work though. Criminals don't give a sh*t about the law, hence the title 'criminal'. An amnesty period won't do anything either, they'll just veiw it as a set-up and ignore it. It's like putting a picture of a cat on a mouse-trap

criminals do respond to penalties
and the amnesty is not for the criminals, but to prevent normally law abiding people who bought a gun they are unsure of from being jailed

but i am open to suggestions

when somebody said, proactive, do elaborate

[britboy]

mathurin wrote: Kamel wrote: Well, it's nice to see some suggestions on combating this dilema, but I don't feel penalties will work though. Criminals don't give a sh*t about the law, hence the title 'criminal'. An amnesty period won't do anything either, they'll just veiw it as a set-up and ignore it. It's like putting a picture of a cat on a mouse-trap

criminals do respond to penalties
and the amnesty is not for the criminals, but to prevent normally law abiding people who bought a gun they are unsure of from being jailed

but i am open to suggestions

when somebody said, proactive, do elaborate

It was me saying pro-active, and you won't understand my answer so will rip it apart but here goes anyway.

The best solution I believe is to try and persuade young Alex, aged 13 and annoyed with the world, not to set out on a life of crime in the first place. To pro-actively stop him is better for all parties than to re-actively lock him up.

This won't always be possible. But for those cases when it is, not only do you end up with no victims of 'Alex', but also no need to spend money keeping him locked in prison, investigating his crimes etc.

So, we know approximately the kind of kids that will probably be considering crime. Inner cities. Gang territory. Broken homes etc.

I would spend your hard earned taxes (yep, your money) on providing these kids with LOADS of things they can optionally do. Sports clubs. Free cinema trips. Hiking trips. Free 'Arts and sciences classes'. I would give employers tax discounts if they employ particularly vulnerable young folk. I would increase the money going into anti-drug initiatives. I would spend money on Alex when he is at the 'crime or no crime' crossroads .. hopefully not 3 years later in detectives and prison wardens time.

Basically young Alex doesn't even realise this, but society would put in large resources to pro-actively give him as much incentive as possible to follow the straight and narrow.

Now this will make absolutely zero difference to some kids -- they will end up mugging people anyway. And also it's hard to quantify. Headlines will start appearing 'government spends $20,000 on Billy over 5 years, and he still kills some old lady'. But I believe a lot of kids will not make that final jump into crime if society isn't treating them like useless wastes of time in the first place (even if they are!!). And a lot of early precursors (stealing car stereos, bit of vandalism etc) are, simply, because the kid is bored out of his head, he absolutely has no money, he thinks he has no way of getting money, his self-worth is at rock bottom and he thinks society doesn't give a stuff about him (does it? really?), so why should he care about society.

Now, most people do not subscribe to my views. They think 'I earn't my money, no way some little runt should be given it in the form of a new sports club'. Its hard for these people to see the big picture. Today's bored petty criminals on the streets are tomorrows rapers and home intruders. For goodness sake, let's give them both the carrot and the stick. Penalties if they start down the wrong road, but not just a big 'hahaha you're life is **** and society doesn't give a cr*p' if they are having a hard time staying on the straight and narrow. Reward as well as punishment when they are at those critical teenage years.

Hope that made sense. I expect a number of responses saying 'I never got a free youth club and sport equipment yet I came out OK'. and 'I earn't my taxes tough cr*p to the kid trying to be lawful'. But these are the same people who will be upset when Alex aged 24 breaks into their house, trashes it and steals $7000 worth of stuff. It's a long term solution, the worst bit being it is extremely hard to quantify how well it is working as in needs to be in place for 10/15 years before you can expect crime rate drops.

What do you think?


(apologies a little off topic -- apart from this will take gun-wielding criminals off your streets)