|
|
Post by subdjoe on Apr 19, 2009 17:11:23 GMT -5
You hit it on the head, Crossride. Because the enhancements for using a firearm during a crime are usually stiff, they are the first things that get bargained away by the State. In which case, what is the point of having them?
But, if that is all they have, the DA and the judge will it to 'make an example for the community' and shwo that 'gun crimes' won;t be tolerated.
On the other hand, look at Project Exile that is pushed by the NRA - strictly enforce and apply all the enhancements for illegal use of firearms during the commission of a crime. Word got out fast in the places where Project Exile was inforeced. And guess what? Use of firearms in crim dropped like a stone. Violet crime dropped like a stone. Some groups tried to get PE going here, but it made too much sense and did too much to stop crime and violence, so people like Saunterelle screamed against it. If 'gun crimes' go down without taking away an honest citizens civil rights, then it doesn't fit the agenda of the gun grabbers like Saunterelle. They want lots of violent crime and deaths so they can restrict honest citizens more, and give the State more power over us.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Apr 19, 2009 22:36:19 GMT -5
Bargaining away the enhancements for using a firearm in the commission of a crime is the real mistake.
Project Exile, and similar efforts around the country, work especially well because the locals hand the felons in possession and crime of violence with a firearm cases to the feds. The mandatory minimum on a gun enhancement in the federal system is five years, and you do the whole nickel. No early outs, no good time. Five years federal time.
Seems like an idea whose time has come here in California, given that our prisons are overcrowded to the bursting point and violent felons are having enhancements bargained away.
|
|
|
|
Post by JustMyOpinion on Apr 20, 2009 11:47:16 GMT -5
subdjoe, no need to get mad! Clearly you are passionate about this subject, and it seems that you see the AVERAGE citizen through rose colored glasses, I do not, and for good reason.
I have encountered people in my life that were unstable in one way or another (scary enough without guns), though they may seem perfectly normal out in public. I have had the unfortunate experience of having to be leery and aware on numerous occasions and consequently have developed some street sense. So, no, I do not drive into bad neighborhoods at 1:30 AM, and if I did my doors would be locked, and cell phone ready...
|
|
|
|
Post by JustMyOpinion on Apr 20, 2009 11:56:22 GMT -5
First of all, "bad neighborhoods" do turn around since all real estate/neighborhoods go through the natural cycle of new, less desirable, bad, and then they are refurbished as they become affordable. Am I willing to do it? No. I have my reasons.
I agree with the rest of your post, and to add: because most crimes are spontaneous I don't want to see people carrying loaded weapons on the street, in the home that's fine by me, just keep em inside the house please.
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Apr 20, 2009 12:39:13 GMT -5
subdjoe, no need to get mad! Clearly you are passionate about this subject, and it seems that you see the AVERAGE citizen through rose colored glasses, I do not, and for good reason. I have encountered people in my life that were unstable in one way or another (scary enough without guns), though they may seem perfectly normal out in public. I have had the unfortunate experience of having to be leery and aware on numerous occasions and consequently have developed some street sense. So, no, I do not drive into bad neighborhoods at 1:30 AM, and if I did my doors would be locked, and cell phone ready... Ah! So you see the AVERAGE citizen as an unstable time bomb. You are taking the exception as the norm. And you would rather cede your freedom to the thugs than have effective means of defense if you should need it. JMO wrote in re to Crossride: "I agree with the rest of your post, and to add: because most crimes are spontaneous I don't want to see people carrying loaded weapons on the street, in the home that's fine by me, just keep em inside the house please." OK, now my head hurts more. You say that since people don't know when they may be turned into a potential crime victim they should not have an effective means of protection outside their homes. I take it you only buckle your seatbelt when you know you will be in a car crash. Please take a look at what has happened in the states that have become shall issue (or must issue) states in the past 20 years. No mass shootings by CCW holders. None have held shootouts over parking spaces, or loud music, or any of the other horror scenarios that the anti-civil rights lobby dreams about longingly. I did see about a year ago ONE story of a lady with a CCW who fired one shot at a car that she thought was crowding her on the road. ONE incident. Out of hundreds of thousands of CCW holders. And I do follow these things closely. Your dismissal of AVERAGE Ameicans as unstable, violent idiots is very disturbing. |
|
|
|
Post by JustMyOpinion on Apr 20, 2009 13:01:15 GMT -5
subdjoe, you will only see this topic your way, I get that. I feel differently, and it's just as much my right as it is yours. No, I do not want people on the street packin a piece, and the only time I would feel comfortable is if they had extensive training. My dad carries do you forget? He was in the Marines, worked for the Sheriff's Dept. etc, and has never had an incident, and I'm sure he never will.
I think the reason the invalid shooting incidents are low is because few people carry, not a compelling argument. I think in our state in particular giving anyone and everyone the right to carry because it is somehow their right would be a disaster!
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Apr 20, 2009 13:12:16 GMT -5
JMO, even before the nanny state stepped in and people could freely carry, and many did, there were very few incidents.
And, as for "if they had extensive training." What does that mean? 100 hours of class and range time to qualify? 5 hours? 200 hours/year? Maybe just showing that they can keep them in the lines and know the basic laws?
Yes, it is your right to feel as you do. But don't use YOUR fears to abridge MY CIVIL RIGHTS.
On that basis, I would be justified in calling for a ban on all protest marches - I feel unsafe when I have to walk by a crowd of leftists armed with clubs or thrusting weapons (the handles on their signs). Should that civil right be restricted because, according to you, they are all unstable?
You seem to have bought into the fear mongering of DiFi et al. and believe that only a select few (DiFi among them) are somehow enlightend enough to not be turned into some sort of murderous automonaton by touching a gun.
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Apr 20, 2009 14:05:53 GMT -5
Here is some reading material that might be of interest. I know it won't change any minds here, since the anti-civil rights people work on fear and emotion, and so don't respond to facts. But, here is an amicus brief in the Chicago gun ban case that is before the 7th Circuit www.davekopel.com/Briefs/ILEETA-Chicago-amicus.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by JustMyOpinion on Apr 20, 2009 14:36:48 GMT -5
subdjoe, waaay back when the population was nominal, and times were very different I am sure the right to carry consequences would be much different than today.
I don't know how many hours should be required, but it would need to be many.
I wish I could feel safe divulging personal information to substantiate my point, but I don't so I guess you think whatever you wish. If you really believe that I am so easily influenced by the Democrats and I just bumble along like some stupid sheep, then that's on you.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Apr 20, 2009 15:00:37 GMT -5
JMO, no one is telling you that you have to own a firearm. That is a personal choice issue. Conversely, those of us who do choose to lawfully own firearms for our own protection would appreciate the same level of respect.
As to your assertions about "waaaay back when"... the homicide rate across the nation continues to fall year over year except in states with the strictest controls in place on the lawful ownership of firearms. In the 40 states that have made "shall issue" concealed carry licenses available, or the two (Vermont and Alaska) where no license at all is required, the rates of violent crime continue to fall. Seems that criminals really do modify their behavior when there is an increased likelihood that they might run up against armed resistance enters into the thought process.
And holders of concealed carry licenses, in nearly universal manner, are just about never involved in crimes of violence or road rage. They are the epitome of responsible citizens as a group and as a whole.
Just yesterday, I was coming home from a range session, hence had firearms in my car. My wife and I had stopped for something to eat and when leaving the establishment an older couple in a small car were not paying attention and ran through a red light when I was turning with a green arrow, nearly taking us head on. In a panic stop the 40 ounce soda I was holding between my legs while I made the turn went flying and wound up all over my shoes, soaking the floorboard in the bargain.
I'm an average guy, even though I am a former law enforcement officer, I am nothing special. Nobody from no place. And I was mad as hell, and those who know me understand that when I get that mad it's something akin to a small volcanic eruption. I pulled over to a bus stop and started the process of getting the liquid out of my car. The old man drove on oblivious.
By your reckoning and broad brush assertions I should have jumped out with one of the several firearms I had with me and laid waste to the countryside to vent my well earned rage. But it didn't happen.
Now why do you suppose that was? If your answer was that I am a law abiding citizen who happened to experience a small misfortune while coming home from lawfully exercising my freedoms, then you win.
I do not dispute your personal experiences with abherrent behavior. I'm familiar with some of it from other postings. I too have a lifetime of dealing with abherrent behavior. What I do dispute is your application of those forms of behavior across larger groups, such as to me, as somehow being the norm.
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Apr 20, 2009 16:56:36 GMT -5
subdjoe, waaay back when the population was nominal, and times were very different I am sure the right to carry consequences would be much different than today. I don't know how many hours should be required, but it would need to be many. I wish I could feel safe divulging personal information to substantiate my point, but I don't so I guess you think whatever you wish. If you really believe that I am so easily influenced by the Democrats and I just bumble along like some stupid sheep, then that's on you. JMO, when you parrot the party line of the gun grabbers almost word for word, what am I supposed to think? You are "sure" that the consequences would be different now. What makes you "sure?" There are no studies to back up your claim. Real world examples in many states, and USDOJ studies, show exactly the opposite of that of which you are "sure." As for training - the states that pretty much issue across the counter and the states that require trainging show no difference in the rates of accidents or such by those who carry (OK, there are some minor differences, but not anything that is statistically significant - all within the margine for error and different methods of counting). So again, real world, wide spread experience shows a very different picture from what you are drawing. As Big Dog said, no one is requiring you to carry a gun or even own one. We won't impose that on you if you don't want that responsibility. The thugs who you fear will carry no matter what the law is. They will rob, rape, murder, etc. even though there are laws against such acts. Why, why, why do you insist that the average honest citizen be a helpless victim? Or, lets say that we do put in a law "Pass this test/class, and you get a permit" Would you then be comfortable with every honest citizen who wanted to carry being allowed to carry anywhere? Or would you impose restrictions such that it was meaningless? I really am trying to understand how and why you feel the way you do , but it makes no sense to me. |
|
|
|
Post by JustMyOpinion on Apr 20, 2009 19:48:18 GMT -5
BD, and subdjoe, first of all I don't question either one of you when it comes to handling a firearm, I don't know you obviously, but based on the last 5 years of correspondence I feel I have a snapshot of who you are. Big Dog I can't imagine you would lose it and shoot someone because they were oblivious to you on the road and caused coke to fly all over the place, that would be a very strange reaction, well, for you anyway. For some others not so much.
Know that I am not disrespecting either one of you, or your capabilities. With that said, I do know that many people are not in control of themselves, and I am not just speaking of my past experiences with my son, though he comes to mind. Speaking of my son, he is free from prison and is currently in rehab, his latest drama? Someone has put a "hit" on him (I don't think they mean with a bat) because he's crossed some sort of stupid assed boundary that druggies have (one example of difference of the times). Yeah, he's coming to MY house for dinner! NOT!
It's strikes me as funny that you assume that we don't own a gun. I'd expressed that when my son showed up at our door strung out on meth and covered in blood form beating his roommate (at 5 AM) two years ago, I hollered to my other half LOCK AND LOAD, so, please, I know full well what it's like to be in REAL fear, and just how to handle it if I feel my life is threatened, even if it's my own son. How's that FOR A SAD REALITY?!
And, again, my son's situation is not what I was referring to. I have other tales, but for many reasons I will not share. I guess you'll just have to trust me.
Yes, subdjoe, I would feel better if people went through courses and some form of psychological profiling. But, that's just me.
In all actuality when would either one of you need to carry a firearm? Who is really gonna mess with either one of you? Really?
|
|
