What can be done to prevent criminals from obtaining firearms easily?

[2ndAmendmentdefender]

Criminals will get their guns on the street corner, so restricting private sales will not deter crime!

 

[miguel]

Hang murderers, rapists and child molesters. That opens up some prison space.

Free dope smokers. That opens up some space.

Keep those convicted of assaults and armed robberies in prison for their full term.

Measure crime stats after three years, then re-evaluate the plan.

 

[Darral27]

Everybody who fails a NICS check arrested immediately is a horrible idea. What about the people who are wrongfully denied as my wife was about 2 years ago.
Mandatory sentencing is never a good idea. There are exceptions to every rule.
Does a prison sentence really deter any crime? It seems most criminals do not even think about jail until after they are caught.
The best idea I have read so far is do away with gun free zone's. The more law abiding people carry the less criminal's will have the upper hand. If more criminal's end up dead we will not have to worry about jail time or over crowding. Not saying vigilante justice by any means. Just if somebody tries to commit a felony against me I shoot and hopefully kill them.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Obviously our rehabilitation system is not working with rates of recidivism as they are. That’s not the topic of this thread, but sure we can brainstorm ideas on how to fix our prison system too.

Hell no it doesn't work! It is in the hands of people who have nothing to gain and everything to lose if it does work. Prison works like everything else--the more demand there is, the more jobs there are, the more money there is to be made. Why would the people who are running it want to have less recidivism?

 

[2A_Tom]

take a hot branding iron that says no guns allowed and brand both of thier hands

Unless they use a gun in the commission of a crime.
MANDATORY DEATH SENTENCE

This would completly eliminate recidivism.

It would also be a deterrant, whatever the libs say.

 

[2A_Tom]

Thats ture, this kind of law would make the blackmarket guns grow in value. I mean I have no idea on who I would talk to if I wanted to buy crack cocaine. However if i wanted to buy a gun I'd just look for a sign that said gun show this weekend etc, walk in with cash and walk away with a gun. I don't even know who I would talk to if I truely wanted to obtain an illegal machinegun but apparently they are easy to get like cocaine or other illegal guns are.

Uh? Do you have anything to support this or did you just pull it ot of your a**.

 

[flowerchile]

Unfortunately, many wont take the time to address the problem from the source.
Its is past time for legislation that identifies broken homes and uses guidence councillors
either through the state or school to work with families to end the cycle of violence in the
home to ultimately prevent it from spilling unto societies later in life. I believe that there
could be common sense incentive programs that help children and families face this problem
without violating the families rights....It can be done...

 

[88GT]

Look its already illegal for felons to possess firearms, I'm not arguing that. This thread IS NOT about overturning this, its about POSSIBLY altering the way guns are transfered so easily. And that might be literally something as simple as looking at a DL or LTCH.

Yes, it is, because it's the only way you're going to get to your result of keeping firearms out of the hands of improper persons. Several on here have already said that those who want one will get one. So instead of controlling the firearms, control the criminals. Keep them in jail. If they're too dangerous to be trusted with a firearm, then they're too dangerous to be trusted in society because they will get a firearm if they want one.

Your question is premised on the assumptions that a) you can actually keep firearms out of the hands of free people and b) a law would be sufficient to make that happen.

Since both are irrational premises, your conclusion, that it is possible to keep firearms out of the hands of improper person, is irrational. Ergo, your question about how to do that is also irrational.

take a hot branding iron that says no guns allowed and brand both of thier hands

Like they used to brand known pirates. That might work. Until someone gets a skin graft.

So you are telling me background checks have not one time stopped a prohibited person from buying a firearm from FFL who is required to run the check?

All it did was stop that person from buying that firearm at that locale on that day. It didn't really keep that person from acquiring a firearm.

1. Agree current laws need to be enforced. I remember reading Obama's proposals from his 23 actions, most of them were bs. Then I read "appoint a director of the ATF", and I thought WHY the heck is there not a director of the ATF? I actually learned why the ATF is so weak. There Goes the Boom - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 01/16/13 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

You think the ATF is weak? In what way?

2. Our system is a failure, we need to address why. In the mean time our prisons are overflowing. I guess we could take tax money and build more prisons to help address this.

Oorrrrrr, we could decriminalize possession, use, and distribution of drugs.

Our system is a failure because people are asking it to do what it cannot ever do. It is a penal system, not a rehabilitation system (regardless of what Indiana black robes might think on this). Incarceration is first and foremost a punishment. When the punishment is severe enough, it is also sometimes a deterrent. But it is NEVER, EVER rehabilitation.

3. Gun laws can go both ways and I think they need to. Harsher on requiring a person to merely look at an LTCH, or looser allowing citizens to carry in national parks, or other states etc. Or how about doing away with 922r compliance or other such laws? I think arguments could be made for those kinds of things too.

What if the buyer doesn't have an LTCH?

 

[Bill of Rights]

I cannot believe some of the ideas I'm reading here.

Require a secure id card, like the military id cards, be issued after a background check by the state police firearms section. All transactions must go through a dealer and the card be verified at the time of the transaction. The card can be linked to a database that has a current photo on file, be linked to state database that red flags if the person has been convicted of a felony or other charge that would not allow them to purchase or carry a firearm. This card would also act as their CCW permit. (always hated those pink paper cards)

Demand that anyone denied via the NICS check be arrested immediately. And that all mentally ill who attempt to buy guns or are in the possession of a gun be euthanized.

Also strip everyone who is forbidden guns of full citizenship. No voting, no professional licenses (doctor, lawyer, CPA, teaching) and mandate that it be shown on the drivers license.

Make the laws harsh and the democrats will not push for more.

Gentlemen, please repeat the following phrase with me: Government is not the solution. Government is the problem masquerading as its own solution.

Secure IDs? As Bunnykid pointed out, even if they have an absolutely perfect record of identifying non-felons at the time of the background check, they positively fail at identifying things done after that check. Must go through a dealer? Like this guy?

Euthanize the mentally ill. Sounds an awful lot like a "Final Solution" to me.

Strip those who make it onto a list of citizenship? OK, so... they can't legally have a gun and you're going to make it impossible for them to legitimately earn a living even if they want to? Are you trying to create more crime?

take a hot branding iron that says no guns allowed and brand both of thier hands

Wow that is seriously a good idea! No purple here, I didn't think of that but thats good. Might be a tad cruel and unusual. Boom, convicted violent felon, gets the branding iron to "mark" him or her as a prohibited person. Now when he/she gets released from prison they're marked as a prohibited person for all potential sellers to see.

And so, if wrongfully convicted, or even if rightly convicted and truly rehabilitated, you don't think they should ever, ever have a chance to redeem themselves... do I understand that correctly? Should a person who speeds (and puts others' lives in danger in the process) be forever forbidden to drive a car or even to ride in one, too?

Unless they use a gun in the commission of a crime.
MANDATORY DEATH SENTENCE

This would completly eliminate recidivism.

It would also be a deterrant, whatever the libs say.

Ever hear of someone being exonerated after the fact by evidence not available at the time of the prosecution?

"Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out later" sounds great on a baseball cap. It's not very practical in reality, however.

How do we keep criminals from obtaining guns? Why should we? They have no right to defend themselves and their families? How about, "how do we address the problem of people (former criminals or not) aggressively using offensive violence against other people?"

My answer: Meet force with force. Meet violence with violence. Meet offense with defense, and prosecute the surviving aggressors. Stop making them household names. Let them die behind bars, in anonymity, if they continue to pose a threat. If we let them out, a return to prison for another violent crime should carry a mandatory sentence enhancement.

My . YMMV.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[2A_Tom]

Darn! Did I forget the purple again.

 

[KoopaKGB]

Unless they use a gun in the commission of a crime.
MANDATORY DEATH SENTENCE

This would completly eliminate recidivism.

It would also be a deterrant, whatever the libs say.

I doubt that is idea is gonna fly. Most would agree that punishment still has to fit the crime.

Uh? Do you have anything to support this or did you just pull it ot of your a**.

I've always read on INGO how criminals don't follow the law (duh thats why they are defined as criminals) and that they already have access to machineguns anyway. No I'm not going to hunt down threads I've read this is and cite them for you, so yes you could say I pulled that out of my a** or I guess the more polite way would be to say it is simply an opinion?

Yes, it is, because it's the only way you're going to get to your result of keeping firearms out of the hands of improper persons. Several on here have already said that those who want one will get one. So instead of controlling the firearms, control the criminals. Keep them in jail. If they're too dangerous to be trusted with a firearm, then they're too dangerous to be trusted in society because they will get a firearm if they want one.

Your question is premised on the assumptions that a) you can actually keep firearms out of the hands of free people and b) a law would be sufficient to make that happen.

Since both are irrational premises, your conclusion, that it is possible to keep firearms out of the hands of improper person, is irrational. Ergo, your question about how to do that is also irrational.

So becuase we this solution sounds like a bad idea then we shouldn't TRY to keep guns out of the hands of prohibited persons at all? I mean whats the use if people are always going to find ways around the law. We shouldn't even try and stop felons or other prohibited persons at all... if thats the case should we abolish back ground checks entirely?

All it did was stop that person from buying that firearm at that locale on that day. It didn't really keep that person from acquiring a firearm.

You're right no charges were brought up on them for trying to purchase one even tho they were a prohibited person.

You think the ATF is weak? In what way?

Please watch the video I linked to that statement to understand why I said that. The ATF has all sorts of restrictions placed on them, they legally are not allowed to have a standing director, in 1972 there were 2500 agents, today in 2013 there are still 2500 agents... do you not see how that might make a organization weak if it doesn't grow, or even be allowed to have a director?

There Goes the Boom - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 01/16/13 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

There Goes the Boom - ATF - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 01/16/13 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

Oorrrrrr, we could decriminalize possession, use, and distribution of drugs.

Our system is a failure because people are asking it to do what it cannot ever do. It is a penal system, not a rehabilitation system (regardless of what Indiana black robes might think on this). Incarceration is first and foremost a punishment. When the punishment is severe enough, it is also sometimes a deterrent. But it is NEVER, EVER rehabilitation.

I don't see how more drug dealers on the street could be considered a good thing. Sure minor possession crimes need to be done away with but typically drug dealers are the ones that are violent.

What if the buyer doesn't have an LTCH?

Then folks could just buy from an FFL?

How do we keep criminals from obtaining guns? Why should we? They have no right to defend themselves and their families? How about, "how do we address the problem of people (former criminals or not) aggressively using offensive violence against other people?"

Why should we try and keep criminals from obtaining guns? It seems a little irresponsible to not at least try and keep guns out of criminals hands. Once again if thats the way we're viewing it then why not abolish back ground checks entirely?

Last I checked convicted felons lost the right to use firearms, even if that means they will have to use lesser means to protect their families.

 

[rambone]

Demand that anyone denied via the NICS check be arrested immediately. And that all mentally ill who attempt to buy guns or are in the possession of a gun be euthanized.

Also strip everyone who is forbidden guns of full citizenship. No voting, no professional licenses (doctor, lawyer, CPA, teaching) and mandate that it be shown on the drivers license.

Make the laws harsh and the democrats will not push for more.

Will you euthanize your fellow troopers who have PTSD?

 

[Bill of Rights]

...
should we abolish back ground checks entirely?

Now you're catching on.

...The ATF has all sorts of restrictions placed on them, they legally are not allowed to have a standing director, in 1972 there were 2500 agents, today in 2013 there are still 2500 agents... do you not see how that might make a organization weak if it doesn't grow, or even be allowed to have a director?

They have restrictions on them? Cry me a river. The whole of the federal government has restrictions on it, even if they have been allowed to ignore them. Most of us call those restrictions "The Constitution of the United States of America". Their whole bloody agency is unConstitutional, so long as they are attempting to "regulate" (aka infringe upon) the right of the people to keep and bear arms. We got along fine for nearly 200 years without such a "bureau"... Odd, isn't it, that most of the high-profile shootings occurred AFTER they began operations?

I don't see how more drug dealers on the street could be considered a good thing. Sure minor possession crimes need to be done away with but typically drug dealers are the ones that are violent.

And they are violent why? Maybe because those against whom they are violent threaten their business? Odd. Walgreens is a drug dealer. So is CVS. I don't see them getting violent, even with each other. Could it be that the "War on (some) Drugs" is causing the violence you describe? Suppose we removed all of the drug laws and let people choose what to put in their bodies. We do it with alcohol now, but it wasn't always so. Hmm.. The "alcohol dealers" got violent, too... right up until their product was "legalized" again.

Why should we try and keep criminals from obtaining guns? It seems a little irresponsible to not at least try and keep guns out of criminals hands. Once again if thats the way we're viewing it then why not abolish back ground checks entirely?

As I said above, now you're getting it. Let me explain a bit further. I don't think we should try to keep guns away from anyone. I think we should try to keep the criminals away from the guns instead. In this country, we have a presumption of innocence until guilt is proven, yet when I go to my LGS, I have to show ID, run through a national database and background check, and, if the item in question is Class III, I have to even give "prints and pictures" before I can obtain the item I want, not to mention the many-months wait from start to finish. I'm in essence treated as a guilty criminal until someone is satisfied that I can't currently be proven to have committed any disqualifying crimes. This, to me, seems to turn the principle on its head. I should not have to prove my innocence, YOU (generally, not personally) should have to prove my guilt, if aught exists.

Last I checked convicted felons lost the right to use firearms, even if that means they will have to use lesser means to protect their families.

Technically, no. No one can lose a right granted by his/her Creator. One can lose the ability to exercise that right under our present, man-made law, however, and yes, the distinction is important. Why? Because while our laws currently provide for that infringement to occur, it is not right that they do so, nor is it in keeping with the intent of our Founders and Framers.
Bottom line, if they can't be trusted to fully return to society after their debt is paid, then why are they allowed to do so? Even if we could completely bar any convicted "felon" from possessing a firearm, would that prevent recidivism? Of course not... So why are we continuing to punish the people who are innocent of any crime in a failed attempt to restrict the former criminals? Put another way (and I hate parent/child analogies for these purposes because government is not our parent, but our servant. That said, they tend to view themselves as our betters and masters, so....) if you have three children and one, the youngest, is caught drawing on the wall with a crayon at age 2, is it rational or logical to restrict ALL objects capable of being used to write or draw such that only parents in the house may use them? Would it even make sense to prevent THAT child and only that child from ever possessing a crayon, pencil, pen, or brush again?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Trooper]

Will you euthanize your fellow troopers who have PTSD?

Again the focus is to make the law so harsh that the left has to back off. For someone to be mentally ill it takes a ruling by the courts. A medical treatment for PTSD is not court ordered thus would not fall under the law.

The courts have to be pushed to strip rights away from the mentally ill. That means hearing, lawyers and accountability. Not some doctor's opinion. Mental illness could be used against drug users and dealers. After all most young black men do have a lot of early childhood abuse ("Antwan Fisher"). In fact too many on the left are mentally or emotionally ill. Having the courts deal with, as prescribed by the current laws, would make millions of democrats 2nd class citizens.

If the laws are pushed to the max, it would be so distasteful that the left would back off. That is what happened in Prohibition. The law reached around and attacked those who supported it.

 

[KoopaKGB]

In this country, we have a presumption of innocence until guilt is proven, yet when I go to my LGS, I have to show ID, run through a national database and background check, and, if the item in question is Class III, I have to even give "prints and pictures" before I can obtain the item I want, not to mention the many-months wait from start to finish. I'm in essence treated as a guilty criminal until someone is satisfied that I can't currently be proven to have committed any disqualifying crimes.

Firearms themselves are inheriently dangerous (just like automobiles) and thus I think the NICS check is better then nothing at all. As for the stringent class III system, I think the $200 stamp is unconstiutional and that fingerprints and photos are overboard. Then again how many class III weapons are found at the scene of the crime? Like a handful, ever? Whats that say about the system in place on those weapons?

Bottom line, if they can't be trusted to fully return to society after their debt is paid, then why are they allowed to do so? Even if we could completely bar any convicted "felon" from possessing a firearm, would that prevent recidivism? Of course not... So why are we continuing to punish the people who are innocent of any crime in a failed attempt to restrict the former criminals? Put another way (and I hate parent/child analogies for these purposes because government is not our parent, but our servant. That said, they tend to view themselves as our betters and masters, so....) if you have three children and one, the youngest, is caught drawing on the wall with a crayon at age 2, is it rational or logical to restrict ALL objects capable of being used to write or draw such that only parents in the house may use them? Would it even make sense to prevent THAT child and only that child from ever possessing a crayon, pencil, pen, or brush again?

Blessings,
Bill

Can people really change? Sure they can, like your example on another thread about an 18 year old who is involved with a group of friends that steal a car stero, he serves his time, matures and gows up and is no longer deemed a danger to society. He starts a family some day. Hopefully there are avenues in place so that he can appeal his convictions and have them reduced to misdemeanor by a judge? I think on a case by case basis freedoms like the right to vote or possess firearms not only can but SHOULD be restored to certain individuals.

Now another hypothetical... as for the individual that raped a 12 year old girl and was sentenced to 15 years and only served 7-1/2 years, I doubt I'd be okay with restoring his rights. So what shall we do with individuals like this? Lock them up forever in prison or a mental institute? Execute them? Counsel them, parole them and release them back into society with a "registered sex offender" file on them whereever they go they have to inform their neighbors of this fact? I dare say make it illegal for that individual to own a firearm. Call me crazy. Sure the individual might still go ahead and possess one. He should be punished for that in my opinion.

Both these guys commited felonies, but I can't say that both of them should regain the right to own a firearm or vote.

About your child analogy... Of course the youngest child should be punished accordingly, and maybe some extra time spent teaching him about the uses of drawing implements. But eventually say a week, allow him or her to draw again. Maybe some extra supervision is required (parole)? Maybe the older ones should police their own? Like say make them in charge of the younger ones to some extent?

 

[Bunnykid68]

Firearms themselves are inheriently dangerous (just like automobiles) and thus I think the NICS check is better then nothing at all. As for the stringent class III system, I think the $200 stamp is unconstiutional and that fingerprints and photos are overboard. Then again how many class III weapons are found at the scene of the crime? Like a handful, ever? Whats that say about the system in place on those weapons?



Can people really change? Sure they can, like your example on another thread about an 18 year old who is involved with a group of friends that steal a car stero, he serves his time, becomes a law abiding citizen and has a family some day. I think on a case by case basis freedoms like the right to vote or possess firearms not only can but SHOULD be restored to certain individuals. Now as for the individual that raped a 12 year old girl and was sentenced to 15 years and only served 7-1/2 years, I doubt I'd be okay with restoring his rights. So what shall we do with individuals like this? Lock them up forever in prison or a mental institute? Execute them? Counsel them, parole them and release them back into society with a "registered sex offender" file on them whereever they go they have to inform their neighbors of this fact.

Both these guys commited felonies, but I can't say that both of them should regain the right to own a firearm or vote.

About your child analogy... Of course the youngest child should be punished accordingly, and maybe some extra time spent teaching him about the uses of drawing implements. But eventually say a week, allow him or her to draw again. Maybe some extra supervision is required (parole)?

Do like the left like to do, change the definition of a felony. Some things simply should not be felonies.

 

[KoopaKGB]

Do like the left like to do, change the definition of a felony. Some things simply should not be felonies.

I agree, decriminalization of possession or use of marijuana would be something that I think off the top of my head needs to be considered. Plenty of other ones should be looked at too I'd imagine.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Shoot-Fellowship-Violence-Inner-City/dp/1608194140]Don't Shoot: One Man, A Street Fellowship, and the End of Violence in Inner-City America: David M. Kennedy: 9781608194148: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

By focusing on the root causes of violence, this man's ideas have worked in several cities where they've been applied. They aren't easy, fast, or glamorous. They aren't cheap, they aren't for the apathetic, and they require buy in from the community.

But they do work.

 

[Lodogg2221]

My answer: Meet force with force. Meet violence with violence. Meet offense with defense, and prosecute the surviving aggressors. Stop making them household names. Let them die behind bars, in anonymity, if they continue to pose a threat. If we let them out, a return to prison for another violent crime should carry a mandatory sentence enhancement.

Nail hit squarely on head.

My only change would be the last part, and its minor, and maybe a nit-pick really, as it would still be a sentence enhancement, but any violent crime committed after release from prison for a prior violent crime is met with the maximum. Death penalty. Id put child molestation in there too.

But then those are my druthers....its fine as is!

 

[The Bubba Effect]

Other:

Decriminalize all the stupid stuff and hang all the people who do the real crimes.

It would be a lively discussion hammering out which crimes are in which category, but I think that is the way we need to go.

That way I do not have to worry about the guy who chopped up a local girl 20 years ago getting ahold of a gun off the classifieds. That guy won't be at the 1500. He will be in the ground which is where he needs to be.

I do not advocate killing the non criminal mentally ill. I am not that type of monster. I solved the "keeping guns out of the hands of criminals" side of the problem. Someone else can chip in with the mental health side.