Home Main Category Second Amendment/Politics

How to deal with nut jobs with guns?

samzheresamzhere BannedPosts: 10,923 Senior Member
In the thread about the Charleston killings, snake proffered a question about how we prevent nut jobs from getting guns.

To that, Bigslug replied: In direct answer to Snake's post#15: The question is "How do we keep guns out of the hands of the whack jobs without infringing on the rights of everyone else?" The answer is "We don't. We kill the whack jobs when they appear".

Which is likely a good way to deal with these things at the last measure. But prior to that, we are faced with this problem too often.

The liberals and antigunners want to simply outlaw all guns -- we know that but it's not going to happen in our lifetimes.

The matter of background checks comes up but the problem is this: Due to, guess who, the liberals, matters of psychiatric illnesses are prevented from being entered into a person's public record where it could be accessed for potential background checks for a gun purchase. Thus the liberals have themselves prevented any meaningful way to have a nutjob's problems be a factor.

This of course still doesn't prevent the nuts from being given a gun by their parents, duh. All I can say there is to make the laws about this pretty severe, getting you 10 years in the slammer if you provide a gun to a felon or psych.

What are your thoughts on this? As snake so correctly says, we don't want to intrude on the ability of law abiding people to access guns, but we do, I think, need to explore ways to keep such creeps from easily accessing guns as well.

I dunno -- your thoughts? Thanks.
«1

Replies

  • Big ChiefBig Chief Senior Member Posts: 32,995 Senior Member
    Problem is who wants to have to go through a Psych Eval to get permission to buy a gun and probably follow ups to keep some kinda medical certificate saying you are "Sane" enough to own one? Red tape would be a nightmare.

    If they want to pass something where a certifiably insane nut job is barred from doing so by a psychiatrist for a serious mental illness and who would be a danger to others with homicidal tendencies, maybe that can be looked into. Not for depression or less severe mental illnesses.

    Problem is I see a slippery slope on gun control and arbitrary decisions made by a medical community who normally are anti-gun in the first place, not all, but a majority.

    Who sets the standards for a person having to be put on a list? The states/Feds? Once you get on one from things like a No Fly List folks say it is nearly impossible to get off or even get an explanation for why you are on one.

    Can of worms for gun owners and would be owners.

    Privacy of medical records..........hell they were saying Obammy-Care is keeping personal data forever already and they can't/have not/ won't even protect that.
    It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
    Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
    I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
  • Big ChiefBig Chief Senior Member Posts: 32,995 Senior Member
    Also, the whole VET business where some want to send you off to war to do their killing, but yet are afraid of you once you get back home like VETS all have PTSD and want to massacre people. PTSD by and of itself should not be a reason to deny a gun purchase. Each person has to be evaluated separately.
    It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
    Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
    I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
  • DoctorWhoDoctorWho Senior Member Posts: 9,496 Senior Member
    The only way to prevent tradgedies is an armed citizenry, nothing else will help, there is no way to preemptively diagnose who could be mentally incapacitated and prohibited from owning firearms? and who wants to see a huge burgeoning class of people banned from owning firearms because of depression or sleeplessness? Gun control will not prevent murders.
    "There is some evil in all of us, Doctor, even you, the Valeyard is an amalgamation of the darker sides of your nature, somewhere between your twelfth and final incarnation, and I may say, you do not improve with age. Founding member of the G&A forum since 1996
  • NCFUBARNCFUBAR Senior Member Posts: 4,324 Senior Member
    I have no numbers or proof for this theory but here it goes ...

    I think it may be possiblity the numbers of murders in countries such as England, France, Australia and such where guns are not easy for the average thug to get. I am thinking they find knives, hatchets, hammers, bats, clubs are used far more than in the US but would not report such findings. Also while not as easy to do there are cases of mass attacks where the attacker uses a vehicle to run into a crowd.

    I have told people before anything can be used to kill ... I laugh at TSA taking knitting needles but let me through with 2 AA batteries and athletic shoestrings that can make form of a garrote, DVDs that can be broken and sharpened very easily to make a crude cutting tool and other improvised tools. Where there is a will there is a way to do so.
    “The further a society drifts from truth ... the more it will hate those who speak it."
    - George Orwell
  • BigslugBigslug Senior Member Posts: 7,996 Senior Member
    I would like to think that most here would have paused and seriously considered Benjamin Franklin's thoughts on liberty and security deeply enough to keep this from being such a recurrent talking point. Let's try again...

    The bureaucracy necessary to track the kooks is a Big Brother none of us wants (ponder for a moment - who exactly gets to determine what is "sane") and truth is, it would ultimately prove futile for three reasons: (1.), the Nutty Bars will find a way - if it's not illicitly obtained firearms, it'll be bathtub-mixed explosives, poison gas, or sharp implements from the local cutlery and hardware stores; (2.), the system only works (or, I should say, has a chance of working) to stop someone who has already been documented to be off their rocker - it does nothing to stop the guy who snaps that has never been on anyone's radar previously; (3.), what agency is going to be risking all the invasion-of-privacy lawsuits brought about by the required snooping?

    Freedom entails risks, but REAL freedom would involve being able to take reasonable measures to mitigate those risks - such as nationwide Constitutional carry. When you consider that the crazy people will ALWAYS have some means at their disposal to kill us, who's hands do you really think you'll be tying with your well-intentioned but short-sighted policies, anyway? I've said it often and loudly (or at least in boldface) - Innocent until proven guilty is how our system is supposed to work, and we've got far too many folks trying to turn that on its head. Crazy people killing innocents disturbs me, yes, but not so much as NICS and Form 4473.
    WWJMBD?

    "Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,349 Senior Member
    samzhere wrote: »
    In the thread about the Charleston killings, snake proffered a question about how we prevent nut jobs from getting guns.

    To that, Bigslug replied: In direct answer to Snake's post#15: The question is "How do we keep guns out of the hands of the whack jobs without infringing on the rights of everyone else?" The answer is "We don't. We kill the whack jobs when they appear".

    Which is likely a good way to deal with these things at the last measure. But prior to that, we are faced with this problem too often.

    The liberals and antigunners want to simply outlaw all guns -- we know that but it's not going to happen in our lifetimes.

    The matter of background checks comes up but the problem is this: Due to, guess who, the liberals, matters of psychiatric illnesses are prevented from being entered into a person's public record where it could be accessed for potential background checks for a gun purchase. Thus the liberals have themselves prevented any meaningful way to have a nutjob's problems be a factor.

    This of course still doesn't prevent the nuts from being given a gun by their parents, duh. All I can say there is to make the laws about this pretty severe, getting you 10 years in the slammer if you provide a gun to a felon or psych.

    What are your thoughts on this? As snake so correctly says, we don't want to intrude on the ability of law abiding people to access guns, but we do, I think, need to explore ways to keep such creeps from easily accessing guns as well.

    I dunno -- your thoughts? Thanks.

    Sam, you're word for word and right in line with my thought process on this. We, you and I, have our differences on some topics, but it's scary how close we are in our political thinking. And I do agree with you that we just have to keep killing the nut jobs as we find them. It's sad but true. Otherwise the only other course of action open to us is to turn in our guns and have the 2A repealed which I'm not for at all. If we do that, our next move is to roll the constitution up on a stick and use it for wiping our ass. Nope, and we can't let the leftists and do-gooders win this one. It will be the end of us as the world knows us. We have to stand by our guns, pun most intended.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 22,984 Senior Member
    My wife was just asking me today "when did people stop carrying guns as a matter of course?".

    I have no idea... What's the Cliff notes version?
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 16,446 Senior Member
    NCFUBAR wrote: »
    I laugh at TSA taking knitting needles but let me through with 2 AA batteries and athletic shoestrings that can make form of a garrote,

    They don't take knitting needles anymore....pissed off too many knitters...
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • knitepoetknitepoet Senior Member Posts: 20,552 Senior Member

    NC, you're partially right they do have plenty of murders, but the US has a lot more per capita. I have a few thoughts on why:
    Might want to check your figures on that, at least as far as "mass shootings" go.
    http://www.ijreview.com/2015/06/348197-obama-said-mass-shootings-dont-happen-in-advanced-countries-like-in-us-one-chart-proves-him-wrong/
    Seven Habits of Highly Effective Pirates, Rule #37: There is no “overkill”. There is only “open fire” and “I need to reload”.


  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,787 Senior Member
    Personally, I think that the right of a citizen to own a gun is carved in stone. If we want to have a public debate about removing a certain level of citizenship rights from the dangerously mentally ill, fine, but it should apply to much more than just guns, and there should be a very simple database that shows only those with revoked citizenship rights, that they are either added to or removed from, and there should be a reasonable process for getting the revocation reversed.

    There is a good chance that my idea would not or could not be implemented, in which case we would do nothing at all, except nab the perpetrators and mourn the victims, and allow citizens to defend themselves.
  • robert38-55robert38-55 Senior Member Posts: 3,621 Senior Member
    Nice threads folks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! agree with yall. Sometimes it seems, Darn if ya do, and darn if ya don't.
    "It is what it is":usa:
  • DoctorWhoDoctorWho Senior Member Posts: 9,496 Senior Member
    The 4473 form asks if the purchaser has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution or if a judge has found them mentally incompetent etc...

    Anyone could very easily be found not mentally competent to possess firearms due to mental instability or even age related causes. So don't be so quick to think this a good idea to keep firearms out of the hands of mentally ill people that are dangerous, just remember, anyone can have a breakdown if there are certain stressor events in their lives.
    "There is some evil in all of us, Doctor, even you, the Valeyard is an amalgamation of the darker sides of your nature, somewhere between your twelfth and final incarnation, and I may say, you do not improve with age. Founding member of the G&A forum since 1996
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,787 Senior Member
    DoctorWho wrote: »
    The 4473 form asks if the purchaser has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution or if a judge has found them mentally incompetent etc...

    Anyone could very easily be found not mentally competent to possess firearms due to mental instability or even age related causes. So don't be so quick to think this a good idea to keep firearms out of the hands of mentally ill people that are dangerous, just remember, anyone can have a breakdown if there are certain stressor events in their lives.

    I'm not sure if this addressed at my comment, but I will clarify, just in case.

    My point is that determining whether a person is competent to possess a firearm is unnecessarily focusing on firearms, when there are a host of other ways that an unstable person can harm others. The problem needs to be addressed as a mental health issue - not competency to possess one item out of a thousand that could be used to cause harm. If a person actually can be analyzed sufficiently that he can honestly be judged as dangerous to society, then portions of his Constitutional rights might be justifiably suspended until he is cured. If we can do that for felons who are judged likely to commit gun crimes, we can do it for mentally ill people who might commit any sort of violent crime, with any sort of weapon.

    I'm not saying that government is even capable of establishing a threshold over which a person must pass before being deemed a danger to society. I'm just saying that there should be an honest debate over it, and that any threshold that is established should apply to all of the dangers - not just firearms. That keeps the gun control issue off the table, and focuses the debate where it should be, in my opinion - on whether or not Constitutional rights can be removed from people who are still legally allowed to walk the streets. There needs to be a debate about whether this is even Constitutional, and then applied across the board.
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    First of all, thanks for all the fish -- er, thanks for all the interesting comments. (sorry, had to add an aside to Hitchhiker's trilogy, and yeah, I know it's intemperate)

    The diverse opinions here shows what a terrific group of forum members we have.

    I think we're all in agreement that there has to be SOME limitations on the 2A rights. Regardless of those who might say "what is it about 'shall not be infringed' that you don't understand?" we do have to assume some limits on gun ownership. My analogy is similar to Justice Holmes' "The right to free speech does not give you the right to cry 'Fire!' in a crowded theater." And that our Constitutional rights as individuals are balanced by other rights that others have.

    I agree that the technical problems of limiting gun possession for the mentally ill is a problem. Where do you draw the line? as was so correctly said. In a perfect world, the genuinely mentally ill would have some sort of database that would prevent them from gun ownership. But this isn't a perfect world. Look for example at our Texas law for either buying a gun or having a concealed permit (soon to become open carry permit) --- it prevents felons or those with class 1 or 2 misdemeanors in specific cases from buying guns or carrying them. Duh. It doesn't prevent the many thugs from having guns or getting them on the black market.

    What has been done, and I think is effective in many ways, is passing laws that make a gun-related crime a stronger penalty. This doesn't prevent the crime but it does keep the thug locked up for 20 years or so if he does commit and is caught. That at least keeps the off the street and works pretty well to reduce recidivism.

    I would disagree with at least one of alpha's points, taken from the liberal handbook: income inequality. C'mon, dude. Hey, I've always wanted to own a high performance sports exotic. So, lemme think... I don't have the money to buy a Lamborghini, so I'll just go to this church and murder a bunch of black people?

    It's true that thugs steal money and other things because they want them and are either too stupid or too lazy to actually earn the money to buy them, but lack of money doesn't entice a normally peaceful and law abiding person to go out killing people. Criminals are criminals and don't become so just because they can't buy that big screen TV.

    I'm also wondering how the aspect of universal Constitutional carry would prevent any basic general crime. Remember, if you do have "pure" 2A open carry, this means that murderers and other felons would still have the right to open carry as they please, right?

    I'm not being facetious here, either. If ALL people can OC, then you must allow felons and all sorts of creeps that right too. (what part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?). I disagree. There must be some sort of limitation on who can OC or possess a firearm, concealed or not. Right? I may not be right here, someone set me straight -- if we have universal 2A carry, then how the hell can a cop deal with thugs open carrying and snarkily laughing at the cops?

    I mean, there are a LOT of street people whom I see around that I would be very concerned if I saw them lugging a pistol in their down low pants. If there is 100% universal carry, these derelicts would have the right to carry, correct?

    As a adjunct to the new Texas OC law which becomes effective in 2016, the universal carry is not effected. Instead, the former concealed carry permit is required, just amended to allow OC. And LEOs will have the right to ask you for that permit if you're open carrying. With which I agree. How else to know if the OC person is maybe a felon?

    Good points, gang. Thanks again.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,105 Senior Member
    To start on Sam's point. Not much you can do without significantly infringing on rights one way or the other. Consider it the price of freedom.

    NC, you're partially right they do have plenty of murders, but the US has a lot more per capita.




    There you go again pulling facts out of your alimentary canal terminus! :rotflmao: The U.S. is in no way the leader in homicides, not by a LONG shot.

    The UN isn't good for much but they do gather a lot of data. I know this is a Wiki link, but it contains the data on homicides by country in deaths per 100,000 population. We are #89 in a list of 218.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

    With these new fangled things called computers, all kinds of data can be pulled up and looked at almost instantaneously. Do you still believe that people won't fact check a bull squeeze statement? And if a few select Democratic controlled cities in the U.S. were eliminated from the data, the U.S. murder rate would be much lower. Chicago, New Orleans and a few others skew the U.S. numbers all out of proportion to the rest of the country.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • AntonioAntonio Senior Member Posts: 2,595 Senior Member
    Here you have to go through a mandatory psychological test to get a permit to own a gun, and each time such document is renewed. Pretty much the same test used for a drivers license, and nothing impossible to pass if you don't have any evident mental illness. It's a low-bar test but at least is something (And believe it or not, quite a few folks fail them! :silly:) and helps politicians to have some justification to say they're doing something about potential murderers with legally purchased guns. Unfortunately the bar is jumped by corruption (A mentally sane certificate costs twice the price of the test....like $ 60) or they just go to the black market to get what they want.

    Very few situations regarding mentally ill people starting shootouts with "legally" purchased guns; last I recall was a guy that interrupted a wedding at the main Cathedral, fired a few shots inside and kidnapped the priest and a few guests with a simulated bomb strapped to his chest; he was talking senseless arguments like demanding the earth's rotation to be switched backwards or such and finally police was able to sneak upon him, pry away his gun and arrest him....might be running for Congress next year :bang:

    In general we have little if any cases of mass murdering using guns in S.A. (And most countries have such mandatory tests when applying for any gun permit), but probably the small ratio of gun owners and the availability to purchase them is the main factor for such.
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    Let's give every ghetto rat in the United States a free gun and 500 rounds of ammo. Once the gunsmoke clears a little in those aforementioned dummycrap controlled metro areas, send in the cavalry and shoot the survivors. The "Misdemeanor Murder" rate will plummet precipitously the next time the bean counters publish some statistics.
    Jerry
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    Poor folks put on a hoodie and wear a ball cap backwards, and steal a little, sometimes violently. Rich folks put on a 3-piece suit and a tie and steal millions with more sophisticated methods like a prospectus or insider trading. Politicians steal from all of us by passing funding bills. Who's the really dangerous criminal?
    Jerry
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    cpj wrote: »
    Sam, to your point on felons and guns I share Slugs view. If, after letting them back into the world we can't trust them with guns, why did we let them out in the first place?

    Why? Because in our Constitution, we forbid cruel and unusual punishment. Back in the Old World you'd get your hand chopped off for stealing. Same in Muslim countries today. We've risen above that, so we don't put you in prison for life if you rob the nearest 711. You does your time, then you're released.

    We do have fairly good laws against recidivism, the 3rd strike laws which I think are reasonable. I can accept and forgive a very stupid decision to knock over the corner store, put the guy away for a couple years and hopefully he'll learn his error and change. Or if not then you slam him into the keep for 10-20.

    I don't think that you're advocating life sentences for all felonies, first offense? Or are you? Because if you are, you need to reconsider our Bill of Rights.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,105 Senior Member
    Nice try on those comparisons, Alpha, but you ignore the 800 lb. gorilla in the room. And that is the culture of the countries, and how they value, or devalue, human life. Rather than income inequality, I suspect that the lack of value on human life is the greater force at work for the murder rates. Countries with the highest rates of homicide are pretty much the same countries where human life is considered not worth much at all. The Hutu-Tutsi tribal massacre in Rwanda had nothing to do with income equality, and everything to do with which tribe one belonged to, and who had the power. That is only one of many examples. Governments are the real bad actors in mass murder. Russia, China, and SE Asian countries have done a bang up job in that respect. And Germany.

    Where human life is devalued to nothing, murder flourishes. And in case you missed it, the U.S. is heading in that direction of devaluation of human life. Gang members kill other gang members wearing the 'wrong' gang colors, fight over 'turf', and kill to take over drug territory. People kill other people for 'disrespecting' them. Killings over nothing at all are common. Didn't used to be that way in the U.S., but when the people degenerate to the point that their morals would embarrass the lowest alley cat, then there's a problem.

    If being poor was a cause of murder, then India would be the murder capital of the world. The rate is high there, but still a lot lower than African countries where tribal alliance can put you in the crosshairs faster than anything.

    Lack of money isn't the real driver of homicides; it's lack of value of human life. Period.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    Sam - do me a favor, take some time and compare these two lists:

    Checked the stats. I don't dispute them. I'm however talking about an individual. We don't act according to statistics. We act according to what motivates or inspires us.

    Income being lower doesn't inspire someone to commit crimes, especially murder. I've been broke but at no time did I consider robbery. I know it's wrong and immoral and won't do it because of that. I think that all of us here are similarly motivated.

    Look at Procal Harum or whatever their name is, murdering the Christians and taking those girls slaves. Do you think that income inequality motivated them? Likewise ISIS -- these fanatics do what they do because they WANT to be poor and fighters for Allah and whatever. Money is no consideration for them -- maybe their leaders are getting rich but not the soldiers on the line, and yeah, to call them "soldiers" is a misnomer and bespeaks badly of honorable military people otherwise.

    People do bad things because they are bad inside, or maybe mentally ill. Some might say that to commit willful murder requires insanity -- I do not. I believe there is genuine evil in the world, and that some people are no damn good. Period.

    Question is, and it's a tough one -- how to we restrain their ability to acquire firearms without further restricting our own rights to own guns? And I admit that I really don't know if that's possible.

    Look at the sort of person this shooter is: He is EXACTLY the same sort of person who tried to shoot up the Dallas Mohammed cartoon exhibit. These sort of chaff personalities are more easily radicalized these days due to the internet and the filth that's available there -- a regrettable byproduct of our freedom. Having money or not was a zero factor in his behavior.

    Most of these jerkwad "normal" crooks are either alkys or drug addicts, too. War on drugs? Hey, rule #1: If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. That applies to drugs or any other sort of illegal activities. Nobody MAKES you take meth or speed or cocaine. Sure, your circumstances of upbringing can put you closer to such behavior, but I can tell you that in my younger years, I had ready and easy access to hard drugs and yeah I could have bought them, too, and was many times offered speed or lines of coke. But I didn't. And I quickly made myself scarce when those drugs showed up. I stuck to an occasional funny cigarette. Some of my good friends went overboard and wrecked their lives, same as was done by my over-drinking pals.

    Everybody gets one chance at a relatively easy out for that one first offense, assuming it's not a violent felony. After that, the penalties need to get harsher -- longer time in stir. It may not change or rehab you but at least you're not on the street selling crack or robbing some poor woman of her SS income.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,105 Senior Member
    I'll just leave this right here:

    Murders%201.bmp

    That's a real cute graph. It is as false as Pamela Sue Anderson's rack, too. And why is that, you ask? Simple reason, really.
    IT IS NOT CORRECTED FOR THE DIFFERENCES IN POPULATION BETWEEN 1900 TO PRESENT!

    I know a little bit about statistics and how they can be skewed to reach a false narrative. I just pointed out that one.

    I'll just leave this link and let you draw your own conclusions. It is a study taking into account total population.

    http://www.ijreview.com/2015/06/348197-obama-said-mass-shootings-dont-happen-in-advanced-countries-like-in-us-one-chart-proves-him-wrong/
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • Big ChiefBig Chief Senior Member Posts: 32,995 Senior Member
    Procol Harum is a rock band from the 60s who had a big hit called A Whiter Shade Of Pale.

    Boko Haram is a terrorist group based in Africa.
    It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
    Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
    I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,105 Senior Member
    The two huge increases indicated by the two humps are explained by history; Prohibition and the Great Depression, and the War on Drugs and the peripheral violence of drug turf wars. A graph without context explaining it is misleading.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    cpj wrote: »
    I wasnt clear enough, my bad.

    If a felony is serious enough, (murder, rape, violent type crimes) we shouldn't let those folks out. A guy who writes a felony amount of bad checks, why are his rights stripped? He did the crime, he did his time. That's it, it should be over and done with.

    Thanks for the clarification. I agree. I really do think that low level felonies, particularly those that are non violent, need to give the perp a break, just one break, but one is good as I see it. Even a somewhat violent crime like robbing the 7-11, don't throw away the key, people do dumb things and given a couple years to ponder the crime, they will either go back to crime again or leave it for good and maybe serve as an example to family that a lesson learned is worthwhile -- it happens all the time with first offenders.

    What I support is some sort of amnesty for those first offenders. We know that convicted felons have a hard time getting a job and that can lead them to finding a quicker route to money, hence another felony. Better to give the good-behavior criminal a first offense break and allow them a route to complete amnesty, including return of all their civic rights and a clean slate. Once.
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    Big Chief wrote: »
    Procol Harum is a rock band from the 60s who had a big hit called A Whiter Shade Of Pale.

    Boko Haram is a terrorist group based in Africa.

    I know, just jokin' wit ya. Saw Procol Harum in concert once. At least I think I did....
  • Big ChiefBig Chief Senior Member Posts: 32,995 Senior Member
    samzhere wrote: »
    I know, just jokin' wit ya. Saw Procol Harum in concert once. At least I think I did....

    I figured you did, when I first first heard the name of the terrorist group, the band name came to my mind too.
    It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
    Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
    I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
  • VarmintmistVarmintmist Senior Member Posts: 7,161 Senior Member
    How to deal with nut jobs with guns?

    I use the grammar check and the spell check, and try not to post inebriated.
    It's boring, and your lack of creativity knows no bounds.
  • BigslugBigslug Senior Member Posts: 7,996 Senior Member
    samzhere wrote: »
    I'm also wondering how the aspect of universal Constitutional carry would prevent any basic general crime. Remember, if you do have "pure" 2A open carry, this means that murderers and other felons would still have the right to open carry as they please, right?

    Ummm. . .I'm not sure where the "open" part of carry walked into the discussion, but they're pretty much packing already Sam. These are folks for whom "The first one was expensive, but the rest are free". A possession charge is small potatoes to these people.

    My uncle once had a neighbor who was a self-styled "anarchist" - you know, the leather, spiky funny-colored hair, and tattoos - who would ramble on about how great a state of anarchy would be, and how he could just go on a bender taking and thrashing things. My uncles's response was along the lines of "In a true anarchy, you would be one of the first people that stable, reasonable people like myself would shoot as a preventive measure".

    I'm pretty certain that even if the rank and file of rowdies knocking over convenience stores didn't have to worry about being busted for mere possession, they still probably wouldn't last long if the same were applied to the law-abiding majority.
    WWJMBD?

    "Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
  • AntonioAntonio Senior Member Posts: 2,595 Senior Member
    Antonio, I'd be interested in your perspective on the main drivers of violence in S.A. According to the stats, South America is the most violent continent in the world, even more so than Africa, at least in terms of murders (excluding wars).

    S.A. is indeed violent, and a lot. I consider everything South of the border as such since C.A. countries share the same issues and values as most of the "true" S.A.
    That said, violence isn't evenly distributed; some countries have much more violence than others, and not necessarily crime (Although most of the times they are related) but also social unrest that ends up in violent situations, sexual violence, corruption, etc.

    You can consider Chile, Costa Rica, Uruguay and Paraguay as the "least violent"; by personal experience I'd say that population density has something to do in all of them less Chile, which you can consider also as the most "civilized" of them all (That is a more or less working judicial system and overall popular respect for the police institutions). In the other side you have Mexico, El Salvador, Venezuela and Brazil, where violent crime is already a national institution and viewed as a "normal" part of life, with organized and specialized gangs that work from prisons and interact with the police, judicial system and politicians....some sort of "warlords".

    Real causes are to me basically 2: The low level of value a human life has (Here you can EASILY contract a "hit" for between $ 200 up to $1500 depending how important and protected the "target" is) and the main, driving reason: Impunity and the real sensation that you can easily get away with when committing a crime.

    Why? Basically corruption, and then little if any judicial & penal infrastructure and equipment (Internet, computers, proper archives, etc.), and no real police presence (Few, under-payed cops with little or no BASIC equipment, motivation and instruction....not even bullets, gas or uniforms!).

    How powerful? Enough to make everyday, educated and law-abiding citizens to commit transgressions even for fun, knowing that there will be no real consequences (Unless a huge media scandal or poor situation management) you can't talk or buy yourself out. Friends of mine have stolen an APC, police motorcycles, police cruisers, rear ended patrol cars, etc. just for the adrenaline rush. Imagine yourself being a criminal what you can be able to do!

    Therefore I'd put impunity and corruption as the main violence drivers in S.A.; the less "civilized" a country is, meaning that its institutions are sensed by citizens as a joke, and the more easily you can bribe yourself out of trouble, bigger the level of criminal violence is. Problem is that in most cases, like Brazil, Colombia and Mexico the availability of huge amounts of drug money has contributed to enhance the level even further.
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement