The problem with the legal system is there are too many lawyers involved.

[sarettah]

To me certain things just make sense and I don't always (even after 50 years of trying) understand how things got where they are.

Last night, at a Halloween party, during a discussion of all things political, someone brought up the matter of guns and "why is everyone shooting each other" and "how do we stop it from happening".

In my mind this is one of those things that is easy to fix.

IMHO, the reason there are so many instances of guns being involved in violent crime is because, in most cases, the penalty for the crime is bigger and badder than the penalty for using the gun.

Say you're a crack dealer (I apologize if you are a crack dealer, no offense is intended). If you get caught selling crack you could face a sentence of life imprisonment. If you get caught using a gun in a crime, you face a sentence of 5 years. So, why, if you were going to sell crack, wouldn't you carry a gun ?

Reverse the sentences, giving 5 years for selling the crack and a life sentence for using a gun in a crime and the crack dealer will no longer carry the gun. It just would not be worth it.

To me, that kind of stuff is just common sense.

But what do I know, I'm just a fucking programmer, ya know ?

:blink:

[Dravyk]

Lot of what you say there makes sense.

Of course, to be devil's advocate ... there's always the other problem. "Well if I kill one person I'll get the chair, so shit ... I'll take out several dozen in that case."

Seriously though, and I'm sure we'll hear from Ant and other gun owners ... Well, hmm ...

I am thinking maybe the problem with gun owners and the NRA, is the precedent thing? Maybe they get riled up not because of the laws out there, but maybe because they feel at some point it will snap back on them? Dunno. Guessing. Gun owners, you tell us.

Think is though. As you said, Sare, it's committing a crime with a gun. Ant, for instance, may love buying, collecting, shooting them. Ant is by no means going to commit a crime with one, not ever.

I also suspect -- again, could be wrong -- but want to hear from the gun folks themselves -- I suspect gun owners really hate criminals. And it's because the criminals have guns that gun owners arm themselves.

[MorganGrayson]

There was an episode of...I *think* it was "Happy Days," but I'm not sure...anyway, it was a sitcom where somebody ran into a burglar. The burlar wasn't armed. He recited a poem as the reason why, something unfortunately I can't quote accurately and don't know where to look. His reasoning was that if you get caught burlarizing, it's one thing. If you get caught burglarizing with a gun in your hand...the penalty was much stiffer.

I agree with you, sarettah. The entire penal system needs a serious overhaul. I think the punishment for using a weapon should be very stiff. Yes, drugs are a huge, dangerous problem, but the penalty for selling drugs shouldn't be higher for what you get if you take someone's life away.

I just finished reading three Jack Higgin's novels in a row. (Bliss!) Apparently, the British register their heroin users. (At least they did, one of the novels was originally written in the 60's and rereleased.) That seems to me to be a much better system.

Legalizing drugs and handing them out by prescription would cause the entire "drug/crime/gang" world to fold up like a wet paper bag. Selling them and taxing them would pay for a lot of things.

I wish to hell we'd learn that you can't legislate morality...and remember what happened when alchohol was made illegal. Apparently, a refresher course in old gangster movies is in order.

[MorganGrayson]

Dravyk...people own guns for a lot of reasons. Self-defense is just one of them. Others are collectors and collect them with the same headset as collectors of anything else. Others like to aim at targets and increase their proficiency at hitting said target, the same way people would play any other sport. My father was a skeet shooter. He also owned a handgun that looked like something a cowboy would carry. (I only saw it a few times, as we were raised to know that the penalty of opening a drawer belonging to someone else's dresser was punishable by death.)

When I married, I discovered - somewhat to this little former hippie's horror - that my husband owned a .22 revolver. He used to "plink" at cans. That was it. He was a helluva threat to cans, but nothing else. It was loaded and in the top of the closet until the night I almost shot him. He was working one of those horrible schedules that kept changing. I heard a sound in the middle of the night, was alone in bed, and thought he was at work. I got up and went for the gun. I had a baby in a crib in the other room, and yes, I would have used the gun. Thankfully, my husband in the bathroom cleared his throat, a most recognizable sound. I put the gun back, got back into bed and had a total nervous breakdown. The only other time I've ever had it in my hand was when we drove from Kentucky to California and the car had the total rudeness to break down in Junction City, Kansas. My husband had to go into redneck bar to use the phone to call triple A for a tow truck. He took the gun, still in it's...leather outfit...holster?...and said "here. Hold this, just in case." I held it, my heart attempting to hammer out of my chest. Ever since then, the gun has been kept unloaded, made unusable by a plastic thing that would have to be cut off.

I guess all of this is meant to show that the times I've had a gun in my hand I would have used it. I would have protected myself and my family. I would not have shot to wound, I'm too smart for that. My side of the story would be the only side available to the police.

I won't litter. I don't break the speed limit. I'm a nice, law-abiding person. I understand the people who keep a gun for protection, though. I'm not defending it as a good idea - nobody who came that close to shooting her own husband and turns a gun into a useless paperweight because she has kids could possibly defend having a gun as a good idea. I'm just saying that I understand them...and hope that one of their curious children don't end up accidentally shooting themselves or their friends.

[sarettah]

I own:

An M1
a .22 Rifle
a .357/.38 Ruger Blackhawk
a FEG .380
and a small .22 pistol

So, I am a gun owner and I fully believe in my 2nd amendment rights.

Legislating against using a gun in conjunction with another crime does not bother me in the least. The NRA and the gun lobbyists have always said that they want to protect good citizens rights to keep and bear arms not to protect criminals so I really don't see where they could make a strong stand against it if it were worded properly.

[MorganGrayson]

I can't believe you put "2nd ammendment rights" and "worded properly" in the same post, sarettah...unless you have a high sense of irony today, that is. ;)

[PornoDoggy]

Actually, in most juristictions today there is an additional penalty for either the use of a gun in the commission of a crime or possession of a gun while committing a crime.

I take a strict constructionist opinion to the 2nd Ammendment. Any American who wants to keep and bear the type of arms available at the time the Constitution was ammended should have that right. Some of the weapons developed since that time don't need to be in the hands of civilians.

I don't have any use for the morons who want to ban all guns, and I don't have any use for the morons who think we should be able to buy any kind of gun we want. The truth of the matter is that the guns that Anthony has been showing off lately are far more likely to be ripped off and used against some dumb storekeeper, random innocent bystander, or run-of-the-mill cop on the street than they ever will to "protect" himself.

The problem is, the mention of guns in America throws common sense out the window.

[sarettah]

Actually, in most juristictions today there is an additional penalty for either the use of a gun in the commission of a crime or possession of a gun while committing a crime.

And in Missouri, that additional is 5 years :okthumb: