View Full Version : Opinion Needed
I've been brainstorming a bit about this whole, gun-control/rights issue for a while now. I'm trying to look at the issue from both sides. I reasoned that banning weapons does nothing but give them to criminals and is unconstitutional. Criminals like Semi/Full auto weapons because of their capacity. So how do you make them less desirable without infringing on lawful owners? I came up with SAFE. Tell me what you think.
SAFE
Semi-Automatic Firearms Enhancement
Purpose: To increase penalties for the INTENTIONAL, DELIBERATE, AND OFFENSIVE use of Semi-Automatic (S/A), or Fully Automatic (F/A) firearms in the commission of a crime. This should have an increased deterrent effect to make these weapons less desirable to those with criminal intent. Not knowing that the firearm is S/A or F/A is no defense. SAFE is intended to target misuse by criminals for criminal gain or retaliation.
Offensive use of S/A or F/A firearm in the commission of a crime would result in additional time to be served consecutively to any other penalties, and in addition to any current gun specifications. Penalties would be as follows:
S/A or F/A firearm = +5yrs
S/A or F/A firearm that fires a rifle round =+7yrs
Possession of S/A or F/A by person not allowed to possess a firearm where no other crime has been committed=+3yrs If firearm fires a rifle round = +5yrs
No time off for good behavior. All SAFE time must be served consecutive to all other time served.
A typical sentence would be: Total time= Time for crime committed + Existing gun spec time +SAFE time.
Protections: since this is intended to make the use of S/A or F/A firearms less desirable to criminals there would have to be protections for people using them for defensive purposes.
Example 1: Criminal (C) uses S/A firearm to rob victim (V). V defends themselves or others with an S/A firearm. SAFE would only apply to the criminal, not the victim, even if the victims use of the firearm was some how determined to be inappropriate. Even if the criminal flees, the criminal is the offensive user, and SAFE would only apply to the criminal.
Example 2: While otherwise being possessed/used for a legitimate purpose, a person accidentally causes injury/death of another with a S/A or F/A firearm. While defending themselves or others V injures/kills a bystander; SAFE would not apply since there was no intent.
Crime of Passion Modification:
1:The use of an S/A or F/A firearm in an act of domestic violence would cut the SAFE time served in half, or could be removed completely at the discretion of the court. SAFE is intended to target misuse by criminals for criminal gain or retaliation. Not domestic violence.
2: If the crime of passion, or other crime, involves the indiscriminant use of an S/A or F/A firearm to injure/kill others then SAFE time is doubled. For this provision the court may reduce SAFE time to the above 5/7yr minimums if deemed appropriate.
Overcrowding of prison facilities: A prisoner with a SAFE specification, would supercede any non-violent offender, and non-violent offenders should be released to make way as needed.
Juveniles would serve SAFE time in a juvenile facility until they are 18, then finish in an adult facility. The court may modify SAFE time for juveniles as needed, and deemed appropriate. SAFE time may not be reduced below 1/4 of the above minimums.
I'll get back to you. Getting too tired to read everything through.
dog
OldNavyGuy
12-17-08, 06:51
HwyKnight, your proposal is far too complicated, my idea of punishment for any person who commits a crime with a firearm of any kind receives instant death penalty.
it should read:
any person regardless of race, creed or political persuasion who commits a crime against humankind shall receive the death penalty without appeals and the sentence must be carried out within 48 hours of imposed sentence.
any one agree, why ? disagree, why ?
Failure2Stop
12-17-08, 07:03
Why would more laws stop criminals that don't care about the laws against murder, rape, robbery, assault, etc?
Instead of enacting laws against items I think we should take action of the highest degree against those that perform any criminal harm to another person, regardless of what item is used in the commission of said crime.
Is someone that murders another person with a knife less dangerous than one that does the same with a semi-auto pistol? Violent crime itself should be met with absolute disgust and vengance, not the inanimate object used.
Actions of the individual are what should bear punishment.
I think possession laws are ridiculous unless criminal intent can be proven, and I do think that this could be where the lethality of the item could bear higher penalties, though it would be more related to what the intended crime would be.
But I have the legal education of a chimp, and I am aware that my opinion on this topic means about as much as a promise from a politician.
Littlelebowski
12-17-08, 07:07
Agreed, FTS. The only thing that really deters criminals is an armed victim and sometimes not even that. I've never heard of a serial killer, rapist, home invader saying "gee, I could do hard time for this, maybe I shouldn't do it". We need armed victims and a punishment that will keep these creatures out of society for good.
i'll add an unnecessary third voice... deterrance doesn't deter anyone. if people actually thought about the consequences that already exist, or cared even if they did think, they wouldn't commit the crimes to begin with.
the thoughtful criminal mindset is "i'm not going to get caught," and isn't "if i get caught, i'll only get 10 years. lets do it!"
furthermore, generally when shots are fired, there is NO for-thought whatsoever. it's usually a snap decision.
Laws against guns, or items in general, are ridiculous. Not to mention that I think that they are wrong. If a person commits a felony so bad they can never be trusted with a weapon, then why aren't they summarily executed or locked away never to return. But if they made a mistake and are not horrible people , have served their time and can be let out why cant they have the right to defend themselves. But as for laws that restrict guns or give higher punishments, look at the north Hollywood shootout. These guys were already CONVECTED FELONS, and yet they had guns, and not just any gun but full autos. So what was one of the things to come out of that, outlaw body armor for felons. Wait a minute, they already had many items that they were not allowed to have, to go commit an act that was already illegal and the response is to outlaw more stuff. What good does that do, while I don't think that they should have had any of that stuff, it does not matter because they did. So the only apropriate response was to kill them or lock them away for good.
My intent is to cause the majority of criminals to shy away from semi/full autos without effecting lawful owners. There will always be a certain level of criminal that will use whatever they can get regardless of the law. While I would love to lock them all up and throw away the key, or shoot them all and let God decide, that is not realistic. I am also concerned that by not getting aggressive, and enacting laws targeting criminals, the only other option for the politicians is more gun control, which is even more useless where gun crime is concerned.
HwyKnight, your proposal is far too complicated, my idea of punishment for any person who commits a crime with a firearm of any kind receives instant death penalty.
it should read:
any person regardless of race, creed or political persuasion who commits a crime against humankind shall receive the death penalty without appeals and the sentence must be carried out within 48 hours of imposed sentence.
any one agree, why ? disagree, why ?
I disagree because it violates Constitutional guaranties of due process, the importance of which have been been proven by many cases of prosecutorial misconduct and forced confessions by innocent people. DNA evidence has exonerated more than a few men imprisoned for rape or murder on circumstantial evidence and faulty witness ID's prior to widespread use of DNA testing.
Such a law would allow the government to railroad anyone they wanted for political reasons and get them executed before the truth came out.
As far as the original post goes, I agree that sentencing is not a deterrent to people who don't plan to get caught. The fact that there isn't enough room in the prison system to house people sentenced under more stringent gun laws means that they would still be turned out on the street.
The key to getting violent criminals off the street is to eliminate mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent drug offenders. Possession and use should be a handled with fines, rehab, probation, or community service, and not incarceration. Then there will be enough room to keep the violent offenders behind bars for closer to their full sentences.
My intent is to cause the majority of criminals to shy away from semi/full autos without effecting lawful owners. There will always be a certain level of criminal that will use whatever they can get regardless of the law. While I would love to lock them all up and throw away the key, or shoot them all and let God decide, that is not realistic. I am also concerned that by not getting aggressive, and enacting laws targeting criminals, the only other option for the politicians is more gun control, which is even more useless where gun crime is concerned.
My point is, when have aggressive laws really effected criminal behavior. Drug laws now carry heavier penalties and drug use has not been affected. Incarceration rates are up but no decline in drug use. Now I am not, nor would I EVER, advocate the legalization of drugs, I am simply using them as an example. So what proof is there that your idea would have any effect? What do you mean "only other option" , what is it you are trying to accomplish? Why do we need more laws if the ones we have are not followed? Both "options" as you call them are pointless and at best things remain the same or more likely make things worse. There is ample evidence that gun control doesn't work, and the other will just add to the already growing drain on tax dollars for incarceration. When it comes to major crimes,( to my knowledge) more laws have never solved the problem.
I disagree because it violates Constitutional guaranties of due process, the importance of which have been been proven by many cases of prosecutorial misconduct and forced confessions by innocent people. DNA evidence has exonerated more than a few men imprisoned for rape or murder on circumstantial evidence and faulty witness ID's prior to widespread use of DNA testing.
Such a law would allow the government to railroad anyone they wanted for political reasons and get them executed before the truth came out.
As far as the original post goes, I agree that sentencing is not a deterrent to people who don't plan to get caught. The fact that there isn't enough room in the prison system to house people sentenced under more stringent gun laws means that they would still be turned out on the street.
The key to getting violent criminals off the street is to eliminate mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent drug offenders. Possession and use should be a handled with fines, rehab, probation, or community service, and not incarceration. Then there will be enough room to keep the violent offenders behind bars for closer to their full sentences.
This I agree with
shadowalker
12-17-08, 15:05
My intent is to cause the majority of criminals to shy away from semi/full autos without effecting lawful owners
A bullet from a revolver will kill you just as fast and if they want a semi auto $20 to $50 and half an hour and they'll have one. Revolver calibers such as .357 Mag, 41 Mag and 44 mag have better terminal ballistics than the semi automatic calibers as well, they also don't eject brass all over the place for the police to find :).
The problem is when non violent drug offenders run out of money to buy their drugs they tend to turn violent, breaking and entering, mugging, etc to get money to get drugs. They are also extremely irrational and unpredictable because they are coming off those drugs, and that makes them more dangerous.
Very few people addicted to hard drugs earn enough money to support their habit, or are capable or interested in holding a steady job at all.
High sentences for drug related charges are not so much to keep people from doing drugs but to protect people from the drug users. Whether it works or not I don't know. What is clear is some combination of things are working to reduce violent crime, whether it be education, high prison times, more gun owners, etc.
It is pretty well shown that gun ownership reduces crime, I would love to see more quality and affordable training opportunities for the every day citizen. Maybe also partner with gun dealers to offer free gun safety and skill building courses, so people don't just buy a gun, 20 rounds of ammo and leave it in the nightstand for years on end.
Our sheriff's office puts on a free "Aspects of deadly force" course that qualifies as the required gun safety instruction for a person to get a CWL.
When it comes time for the next AWB the GC crowd will cry about how tracings were reduced by 60% as a result. We all know this is BS. However, if enacting SAFE were to create the same or better result how could they justify another AWB? If we sit here and talk out of both sides of our mouth: Gun Control doesn't work!; Stronger penalties doesn't work! What option does that leave for dealing with gun violence? Everybody knows that there are several factors related to crime/violence, but in our blame everybody else society nobody wants to bite the bullet.
Clearly the violence portrayed by Hollywood has had a negative effect on our society, and I'm sure there are studies to support it. Let's restrict the depiction of violence to documentary, and news reporting only! Ha, fat chance too much $$ in Hollywood. Isn't that protected under 1A? I'm just stirring the pot here and being sarcastic.
I don't like this but if we were really serious about reducing crime/violence we would legalize the drugs, tax them, regulate them, and fight it from the education/treatment front. The same way we do with alcohol. Yes it would suck at first, but it would probably wind up with a similar abuse rate as alcohol. The money saved from incarceration and drug enforcement could then be focused on other issues. Criminals would continue to be criminals, but most likely in less lucrative/violent ways.
Contrary to popular belief, criminals aren't stupid. If you were a criminal looking to buy a gun, and you knew SAFE was in effect, what would you buy/steal? Why use a S/A when a revolver works just as well, and carries less penalty if caught? This is my objective, make the S/A guns less desirable. There will always be criminals who won't think about or care what the law is. SAFE wouldn't save the world just turn some of the criminals away from the S/A F/A guns. Thereby giving the GC crowd less of an argument.
If the GC crowd supported something like SAFE, and it worked, their argument for GC would lose strength. If they didn't support it, they would look even more like they are just trying to grab guns, and not really care about reducing violence.
HwyKnight, your proposal is far too complicated, my idea of punishment for any person who commits a crime with a firearm of any kind receives instant death penalty.
it should read:
any person regardless of race, creed or political persuasion who commits a crime against humankind shall receive the death penalty without appeals and the sentence must be carried out within 48 hours of imposed sentence.
any one agree, why ? disagree, why ?
Anyone who commits a crime with a gun should die? Just like that? Really?
:rolleyes:
Have any idea as to how many potential scenarios you are overlooking where the innocent can be and have been portrayed as guilty for using a firearm to defend themselves or their family?
Why would more laws stop criminals that don't care about the laws against murder, rape, robbery, assault, etc?
Exactly.
Hwy Knight, your suggestion is nobel, but also very idealistic. Your suggestion also exposes all of us to even higher penalties if we should ever unintentionally cross a line while using one in good faith.
There are laws making the use of a machine gun more severe than using a semi-auto. There are also strict gun laws in place now. We don't need more of that discriminating type, but again your idea is nobel.
A crime is a crime it does not matter how it is committed. Laws that legislate how a crime is punished, whether it be hate, guns, or other only leads to bigger buracreasy and no decrease in actual crime. Punishment is simple, Just fit the crime. Murder = death, Rape = death, Theft = lose a hand. It is the act that must be punished not the tools involved.
RogerinTPA
12-17-08, 18:08
How bout enforcing the laws that are already on the books? Criminals don't give a s--t because they are CRIMINALS. Here in FL it's 3 strikes your done:
1. Possession of an unlawful firearm, 10 years.
2. Use a gun to commit a crime, 15 years.
3. Shoot someone whether they die or not, 25 years to life/death penalty, depending on the circumstances.
Failure2Stop
12-18-08, 05:23
SAFE wouldn't save the world just turn some of the criminals away from the S/A F/A guns. Thereby giving the GC crowd less of an argument.
It is already difficuly to acquire a "machinegun" legally. However there are those that broke all sorts of laws to acquire the illegal guns to be used in crimes. Possession of an unregistered MG is already a serious offense.
Those existing laws on importation, internation trade, machinegun manufacture, possession, and non-registration (all of which bear a punishment) does not stop criminals from obtaining them whenver possible. Possession laws in places like the UK (where gun ownership at all is heavily restricted and pistols are completely banned) still fails to stop criminals from obtaining and using pistols to kill.
While I consider your effort to be noble, I also think that it is the same line of thinking that has bestowed our nation with more laws than we know what to do with. Acknowledging the fact that laws do not stop the crime makes the law useless except as deception. In my opinon, that is not a good thing.
Laws against actions are more about punishment than prevention. If a store has a problem with shoplifting they generally have better success in reducing theft by hiring active guards instead of pressing for maximum sentence for those already caught.
Just my unfounded opinon.
How about we streamline the laws, all 1 billion of them now, and just enforce those.
More laws???????????
With all due respect, I can think of nothing more useless to criminals than more laws.
OldNavyGuy
12-22-08, 08:47
Anyone who commits a crime with a gun should die? Just like that? Really?
soooo, you and some others "FEEL" that it is wrong to eliminate the criminal who uses a gun in committing a crime ? do you (generically, all who disagree) plan on being a criminal ? and fear the death penalty for using your gun to commit a crime ??
OK.., How about this one ??
"Any person committing a crime with a firearm of any kind shall receive the death penalty upon conviction of said crime"
so......, looks like due process to me !! :p
My intent is to cause the majority of criminals to shy away from semi/full autos without effecting lawful owners. - Revoke the 1934 and 1986 gun acts. Repeal all laws banning the carry of firearms concealed or open by citizens eligible to posess firearms. Disband the BATFE, and reincorporate their legal authority into the Dept of Treasury to handle tax issues on alcohol and tobbacco. Freeze hiring in the Dept of Treasury. Allow Sears to sell firearms out of their catalogues just like they did in my youth. Put all that in a federal law with a premption clause to abolish all the state laws restricting carry, NFA, requiring permits, etc.
My reasoning is simple - Gun laws have increased and violent crime has increased. There are no reputable sources that indicate that any gun laws stop any violent crime. There is reputable information indicating that Shall Issue states have lowwer crime rates than states with no carry or carry only by the rich (CA & NY) . . . armed citizens seem to have a deterent effect on crime. It appears that the militia is the most effective tool against violent crime. As we all know, A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Obviously we should end the infringements and decrease violent crime.
shadowalker
12-22-08, 11:27
The problem with the death penalty for any crime with a gun is most people break the law at some point, even if unintentionally. We already have laws that increase penalties for many crimes if the bad guy is armed.
Violent crime is down significantly from 20 years ago, I don't think there is a reason to pass new laws.
Passing new laws would probably hurt gun rights pretty badly because we've been saying for years we don't need new laws, enforce the old ones. If for no reason we suddenly decide we do need new laws it would be very difficult to limit their scope because our credibility would be completely gone.
I would be for increasing the legality of using force to defend property. I believe it should be a moral and ethical issue, not a legal issue.
Earl Bypass
12-22-08, 11:30
OK. Stop right there. The last I heard/was told/read/viewed, gun ownership is up, applications for concealed carry permits is way up and "crime" was down. Guns in the hands of the law abiding citizens (LAC) is given as a reason for a DECREASE in CRIME.
The SAFE concept appears limited. I say: ANY gun used for a crime should have an additional 10 years tacked on to the SAFE suggestions. If you waste the gun bearing criminal in the action to commit, oh well. In a court, the death penalty, without the due process -- should the criminal be able to escape, is outside of of that whole constitutional thing is it not? ... this cold medicine is really screwing up my head ...
Like my dad told us: If they are outside trying to get in - wait. If they make it through the window or door -- put them down. And, don't worry about the mess on the carpet, your mom will understand.
OK. Stop right there. The last I heard/was told/read/viewed, gun ownership is up, applications for concealed carry permits is way up and "crime" was down. Guns in the hands of the law abiding citizens (LAC) is given as a reason for a DECREASE in CRIME.
Yup, that is pretty much what I said.
Watch this map
http://www.gun-nuttery.com/rtc.gif
And take a look at crime stats. The states that go blue show drops in crime, red and yellow states, show increase. Obviously Shall Issue works. If the basic premise of Shall Issue is that any citizen that can legally possess a fire arm shall be issued a permit if they apply . . . why restrict? Why not allow any eligible citizen to carry & save tax dollars cutting the administrative costs? Open or concealed, shouldn't make any difference. 1934 and 1986 gun acts didn't accomplish their alleged goals, why should citizens be restricted in these areas?
A crime is a crime it does not matter how it is committed. Laws that legislate how a crime is punished, whether it be hate, guns, or other only leads to bigger buracreasy and no decrease in actual crime. Punishment is simple, Just fit the crime. Murder = death, Rape = death, Theft = lose a hand. It is the act that must be punished not the tools involved.
I fall into this camp as well. Good post.
- Revoke the 1934 and 1986 gun acts. Repeal all laws banning the carry of firearms concealed or open by citizens eligible to posses firearms. Disband the BATFE, and reincorporate their legal authority into the Dept of Treasury to handle tax issues on alcohol and tobacco. Freeze hiring in the Dept of Treasury. Allow Sears to sell firearms out of their catalogs just like they did in my youth. Put all that in a federal law with a preemption clause to abolish all the state laws restricting carry, NFA, requiring permits, etc.
My reasoning is simple - Gun laws have increased and violent crime has increased. There are no reputable sources that indicate that any gun laws stop any violent crime. There is reputable information indicating that Shall Issue states have lowwer crime rates than states with no carry or carry only by the rich (CA & NY) . . . armed citizens seem to have a deterent effect on crime. It appears that the militia is the most effective tool against violent crime. As we all know, A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Obviously we should end the infringements and decrease violent crime.
I could not agree more!!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.