The right wing is just NUTS... the answer to guns.. is more guns?!

[ajcorleone]

Great but still waiting for an answer can you live with harsher more death sentences?No more waiting 3 years or less your guilty of murder your done

Willing to compromise? Holy crap! I've been waiting WEEKS for someone (somewhat) against gun control to say that! HALLELUJAH!

Seriously, you just made my freaking week!

[Wickabee]

Great but still waiting for an answer can you live with harsher more death sentences?No more waiting 3 years or less your guilty of murder your done

I'd be open to that. Though my biggest problem with the death penalty is the amount of people who serve life sentences, only to be found innocent after 30 years (or so, not specifically). It's fairly rare, but does happen. I hate the idea of an innocent man dying and feeling good about that while a guilty man runs free. Probably why I would gain nothing from seeing someone die.
So maybe a stipulation that if there's DNA evidence or something else absolute (several eye witnesses, etc) then ye, absolutely you die and soon, but a man can't be put to death on circumstantial evidence. If a case is strong enough to convict for murder, but there is nothing absolute, such as DNA on scene or eye witnesses to the crime, then the life sentence you would (likely) be serving now.

Of course, the second you put human nature into the system it gets screwed. But that's with any system.

[indexed]

Im fine with the death penalty myself. The reason I say criminals wont follow any new lasws is because the fact they have to think about the armed people before they act. To me what you are saying because I have theft insurance on my car I should leave the keys in the ignition and so what if someone takes a shot. It just doesn't work. Fact is people have to think before they go into a house or commit a crime because they need to be worried about the other party shooting them.

Ive been in the situation where a party got out of hand. Street gang type of people. I had the sheriff on the line and had them in my sites through my window. They had been drinking all day, sheriff had tons of calls from the area but because I get home from work late they decided to play look whos the cops now. Standing on my driveway with a gun because I showed up late.

You know what the sheriffs said. They said go ahead and fire we will be there any minute. I didn't find it to be some kind of life altering moment in my life. I made a decision that if I felt I had to I would have shot them period. I didn't have to but if the cops would have showed up 5 minutes later Im prettty sure I would have had to and I would have.

I live in a good neighborhood I might add. Middle class to upper middle class. These were new neighbors who were illegally renting a back house because the original owner had died and her daughter didnt know any better. Fact is that this is a way of life in many areas. People put in that situation need to be able to protect themselves.

Like I said you don't live in a major US city. You can say well that only in bad areas but this stuff flows out into other areas to and I for one would have gladly shot any of those people had I thought my family was in jeopardy.

Guess what, that is not going to change. Thank god I had my glock but didn't have to use it.

[Wickabee]

Im fine with the death penalty myself. The reason I say criminals wont follow any new lasws is because the fact they have to think about the armed people before they act. To me what you are saying because I have theft insurance on my car I should leave the keys in the ignition and so what if someone takes a shot. It just doesn't work. Fact is people have to think before they go into a house or commit a crime because they need to be worried about the other party shooting them.

First of all, your analogy with the car is terrible. For starters, I don't know what company would pay out if you left your car open and running in public. Secondly, it's not even close to anything I've said whatsoever. I can't even begin to imagine where you pulled that from, but it makes no sense against anything I've said. Sorry.

And third, criminals would still have to think about whether you have a gun or not. What I put forth was a basic license for basic guns that anyone can obtain at age 18 (or 21 or whatever, i don't care about particulars right now) and then a graduated licensing system based on classifications that are based on power and speed, not look. Where in there does it say criminals don't have to fear anything because no one has a gun? It doesn't, you made that up yourself because you're paranoid that I want to take all guns away from all Americans. If you truly think that, you're beyond crazy. If you don't, then please explain yourself, because that's all I can see right now.

Ive been in the situation where a party got out of hand. Street gang type of people. I had the sheriff on the line and had them in my sites through my window. They had been drinking all day, sheriff had tons of calls from the area but because I get home from work late they decided to play look whos the cops now. Standing on my driveway with a gun because I showed up late.

You know what the sheriffs said. They said go ahead and fire we will be there any minute. I didn't find it to be some kind of life altering moment in my life. I made a decision that if I felt I had to I would have shot them period. I didn't have to but if the cops would have showed up 5 minutes later Im prettty sure I would have had to and I would have.

...so?

I live in a good neighborhood I might add. Middle class to upper middle class. These were new neighbors who were illegally renting a back house because the original owner had died and her daughter didnt know any better. Fact is that this is a way of life in many areas. People put in that situation need to be able to protect themselves.

That's great. I don't see how graduated licensing would change a person's ability to protect themselves since, as I said, every gun that is legal now would be legal then, they would all just be classified (properly) and your license has to match the gun's classification. What is so scary about that?

Like I said you don't live in a major US city. You can say well that only in bad areas but this stuff flows out into other areas to and I for one would have gladly shot any of those people had I thought my family was in jeopardy.

There you go again with where I live. I live in a mid-sized Canadian city now. I've lived in a small town and also a major city. I've been in situations where I may have used a gun if I'd had one. Just because I'm Canadian you assume I'm a country bumpkin sitting on a hill who has no idea what goes on in the cities? Well gee willikers, I guess I'll just hop on my tractor (I painted it to look like a zamboni, you know) and plow the ice fields before I go to sleep in my igloo, miles away from everyone.

Seriously though, don't assume what I know and what I don't based on where I live. Sure, I don't live in LA. That doesn't mean I've never set foot in a major US city. It doesn't mean I don't know what happens. You're ignorant if you think it does. Flat out ignorant.

Guess what, that is not going to change. Thank god I had my glock but didn't have to use it.

Yes. Thank God you didn't have to use it. But let me ask you this. Is your glock legal? I only ask because you seem to think my graduated licensing would rip it from your hands. Unfortunately for you, I've said many times it wouldn't. As such, I have to wonder what aspect exactly you're against. You're against criminals having guns while the people have them taken away. Under my idea, your glock isn't taken away, so long as you have no problem registering it and getting licensed to that particular classification.

What are you afraid of? All of your objections have nothing to do with what I've said.

[ajcorleone]

Fairly rare is true but again you r getting what you want.I am just curious becaus I raise this question to dath penalty opposers all the time.I just want to see how many people REALLY want change and are willing to give something to get something.You say your open i can can respect that.I just want to know if you had to press the yes or no button bottom line would you?You kind of answered me.

I'd be open to that. Though my biggest problem with the death penalty is the amount of people who serve life sentences, only to be found innocent after 30 years (or so, not specifically). It's fairly rare, but does happen. I hate the idea of an innocent man dying and feeling good about that while a guilty man runs free. Probably why I would gain nothing from seeing someone die.
So maybe a stipulation that if there's DNA evidence or something else absolute (several eye witnesses, etc) then ye, absolutely you die and soon, but a man can't be put to death on circumstantial evidence. If a case is strong enough to convict for murder, but there is nothing absolute, such as DNA on scene or eye witnesses to the crime, then the life sentence you would (likely) be serving now.

Of course, the second you put human nature into the system it gets screwed. But that's with any system.

[Wickabee]

Fairly rare is true but again you r getting what you want.I am just curious becaus I raise this question to dath penalty opposers all the time.I just want to see how many people REALLY want change and are willing to give something to get something.You say your open i can can respect that.I just want to know if you had to press the yes or no button bottom line would you?You kind of answered me.

Basically I have no problem with harsher sentences on gun crimes, but you can't just add time or say "death" across the board. It has to bee done with actual thought. A longer sentence isn't necessarily a better one, and I'm not talking about rehabilitation.
One of the stupidest laws, I think, is that merely presenting a gun is tantamount to using it now. Even saying you have a gun is as bad as firing off a few rounds. We have a system of law that has become built on, "If you do the slightest wrong, you may as well go all in because the punishment is the same".
Ultimately, I'm not going to agree to harsher sentences simply to get what I want. It, too, has to be thought out and make actual sense. At the end of it though, that give and take has to be on the table if we're looking at this from an actual legislative standpoint and not just saying what we think should happen. I've been waiting for an actual compromise kind of situation to present itself. Heck, I went from "ban assault weapons" to everyone keeping their guns, but adding some culpability. My views changed because I listened to you guys. Unfortunately, there will always be the people who are against for the sake of being against and who will stop any discussion dead in its tracks because they're scared and, ultimately, weak.

[ajcorleone]

Of course this all has to be thought out.And I have stood firm stating death or murders regardless or a gun was used or not.My bottom line i am for gun revisions but still have to right to carry firearms and keep firearms in the household for safety.That stance will never change.As far as a better background check for purchase of firearms then yes that fine.But I feel you start enforcing death penalty crime might not decrease greatly but it will decrease.And in your own words Wick no need to go fo the all or nothing.No BS I have dealt with inmates who are sentenced to death and on death row and 9 time out of 10 when they know they are out of options they suddenly have regret.So just imagine if you executed 3 people in 1 month there would be a drop in murder crimes in that area.

[Wickabee]

Of course this all has to be thought out.And I have stood firm stating death or murders regardless or a gun was used or not.My bottom line i am for gun revisions but still have to right to carry firearms and keep firearms in the household for safety.That stance will never change.As far as a better background check for purchase of firearms then yes that fine.But I feel you start enforcing death penalty crime might not decrease greatly but it will decrease.And in your own words Wick no need to go fo the all or nothing.No BS I have dealt with inmates who are sentenced to death and on death row and 9 time out of 10 when they know they are out of options they suddenly have regret.So just imagine if you executed 3 people in 1 month there would be a drop in murder crimes in that area.

I'll admit there would be a drop in murders, just as legalizing marijuana will lead to a rise in drug crime...at first. Ultimately only clear thinking, non criminals are really affected. Anyone who already doesn't care about law won't change and "crime of passion" type killings leave very little room to think about consequences. I think murder would eventually rise steadily until it found a new plateau, and that would be too many deaths and then we're right back here. Not knocking it, just debating.
I think there needs to be (and this is my opinion, obviously not everyone is going to like it):
1 - Re-classification of weapons, and I mean weapons, not just guns. I don't want to include kitchen knives or hunting knives, but swords and the like.
2 - Licensing based on that classification. There are some swords and daggers out there that scare me much more than a hunting rifle. At the same thing a knife is a tool not a weapon, a chainsaw is a tool not a weapon and so forth. I literally mean stuff that is produced solely as a weapon. Brass knuckles are a great example. A butcher knife is a tool and would not be subject to licensing. Same for a hunting knife.
3 - Legislation stating that if your gun is used in a crime, you must prove you had no knowledge and that you store your gun in a safe and secure manner. If you want to gamble that your gun won't be stolen, go ahead and do nothing.
4 - Harsher sentencing in crimes where a gun is used. Just as an example, let's take robbery. Now, if you say you have a gun you're charged for armed robbery no matter what. I'd say you get X for the crime (robbery), X+Y for suggesting or presenting a gun, X+5Y for firing a gun during a crime and life/death (we'll figure that out) if someone dies from your gun.
5 - Make all of this Federal Law, or state law in all states. It's not going to work one bit unless everyone is on board. I'm all for state's rights (even though I'm Canadian). I actually kind of love the idea. This issue, though, is so far reaching and has such final consequences that the whole nation needs to put away their campaign signs and get on board. If not with this, with something. The US needs to prove it is still indivisible when it matters.

I think ultimately, when discussing gun violence, we've all taken a big step into admitting that it's going to take a lot of things to even see a hint of a change. We're talking about gun reform, the state of mental health care, education, policing, sentencing, media, government, etc. This is going to take a lot of time on a lot of seemingly unrelated issues to work towards one common goal. Unfortunately, there will always be special interest groups, from the unions to the NRA, who will stand in the way of true progress and change. They will force America to be satisfied with a meaningless illusion, like we've seen happen with air travel since 9/11. As long as those who can seriously discuss solutions continue to do so, there is hope.

[ajcorleone]

It is going to take alot for any changes to happen in all aspects of life.But when both sides won't bend you have a stalemate.

[Wickabee]

It is going to take alot for any changes to happen in all aspects of life.But when both sides won't bend you have a stalemate.

Yup