Re: Random Gun Information Still Not Worthy of a New Thread

Started by Sgt PSN, May 24, 2011, 10:44:36 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Sgt PSN

Quote from: ice grillin you on May 24, 2011, 10:00:54 PM
Quote from: Sgt PSN on May 24, 2011, 09:49:03 PM
If the bullet hit someone else, then you obviously throw the book at him.  The gun was registered and he had paperwork (but if I remember correctly it was from another state.....Florida maybe).   

the gun was registered to own but it wasnt registered to carry....in fact nyc gun laws are some of the toughest in the nation and it virtually impossible to get a ccw permit...and the sentence for ccw is mandatory (i believe 36 months?)...they actually pleaded down plaxes number


Could have sworn he had papers to carry too (albeit out of state).  Didn't this happen shortly after a new gun law was passed in NY/NYC?  For some reason, I keep thinking it was a relatively new law or new guidelines for punishment. 

Anyway, the point is that NYC's punishment is a bit extreme imo.  I'm all for hard criminals doing hard time, but I think Plax's case was over the top and the punishment didn't fit the crime. 

Diomedes

Sentences for gun crimes are weak.  They should all be greater.  Someone illegally carrying a gun into a night club is a far greater threat to the public good than reflected by a two year sentence.  It ought to be ten years.  And another ten for discharging it (even accidentally).

Firing a gun at someone should be 30 years, actually shooting someone another 20.  

When you are packing illegally, not to mention actually threatening or shooting, you have crossed a bright bright line from social to anti-social and you need to be removed from our midst.

I cannot for the life of me understand why we take it so easy on gun criminals.  
There is considerable overlap between the intelligence of the smartest bears and the dumbest tourists." - Yosemite Park Ranger

ice grillin you

totally agree...there are a lot of instances of over reaching punishment for crimes in this country...drugs being the obvious one...however guns does not fall into this category...they need tougher laws and tougher sentences
i can take a phrase thats rarely heard...flip it....now its a daily word

igy gettin it done like warrick

im the board pharmacist....always one step above yous

Rome

The constitutionally protected and guaranteed right to gun ownership is one of our most sacred freedoms in this country, and it's shocking and more than a little disappointing to see the two of you, who routinely decry our loss of civil liberties otherwise, so blithely advocating for one of those rights to be taken from us.

Are you two seriously suggesting we should allow ourselves to be at the mercy of the State & criminals who both have easy access to weapons?


ice grillin you

keep a pistol in your house if you want....make some exception for sport guns and the rest are illegal and should be punished hard...guns should not be allowed on any public property or allowed to be carried

i dont give a rats ass about it being in the constitution...everything in that document is always on the table for ammending
i can take a phrase thats rarely heard...flip it....now its a daily word

igy gettin it done like warrick

im the board pharmacist....always one step above yous

Sgt PSN

Carrying a gun, legally or otherwise should not come with a prison sentence. At least not for a first offense. If the gun is fired publicly then I think that intent should be a factor. In a case like Burress, he clearly did not intend to fire it and he didn't injure anyone other than himself. It was an accident that was the result of a stupid decision on his part. So instead of locking him up for 2 years, you fine the living crap out of him. Give him 300 hours of community service. Require him to take a weapons safety class at his own expense and suspend his ability to carry a weapon for X amount of time.  After he completes all court ordered requirements he can then apply to carry again. If he has a 2nd offense then you can lock him up for a few years.

PhillyPhreak54

Quote from: Rome on May 25, 2011, 08:23:26 AM
The constitutionally protected and guaranteed right to gun ownership is one of our most sacred freedoms in this country, and it's shocking and more than a little disappointing to see the two of you, who routinely decry our loss of civil liberties otherwise, so blithely advocating for one of those rights to be taken from us.

Are you two seriously suggesting we should allow ourselves to be at the mercy of the State & criminals who both have easy access to weapons?

Part of the reasons the criminals have easy access is because of the relaxed gun laws, mostly due to the great and powerful NRA. There is no reason for MAC-10's and other assorted automatic and semi-automatic weapons to be available under the guise of the constitutional right to own a gun.

I wholeheartedly agree that we should be allowed to own and carry weapons. However there needs to be a limit on what is allowable and purchasable. There is no reason that armor-piercing bullets should be available. There is no reason that when people rob a bank and cover themselves in armor that police need to commandeer weapons and ammunition to defeat them because they're outgunned by a criminal (see the LA bank robbery about 15 years ago).

Own a gun; carry a gun concealed in your car. But place strict limits on what can be purchased and toughen up the sentences of those who piss on the rules that farg it up for everyone else.

rjs246

How about this (which I think was Dio's point)? Enforce the existing gun laws stringently.

They just aren't enforced properly and if they were we would be far better off.

Eagles Football!
Is rjs gonna have to choke a bitch?

Let them eat bootstraps.

phattymatty

Quote from: Sgt PSN on May 25, 2011, 08:38:58 AM
Carrying a gun, legally or otherwise should not come with a prison sentence. At least not for a first offense. If the gun is fired publicly then I think that intent should be a factor.

can't believe anyone is saying that it's not a huge deal for a gun to go off in a crowded club. intentional or not.

his biggest problem is wearing sweatpants to the club. get some nice jeans and that shtein stays inside your belt son.


PoopyfaceMcGee

What does any of this have to do with LeCharles Bentley?

Tomahawk

Quote from: Sgt PSN on May 25, 2011, 08:38:58 AM
Carrying a gun, legally or otherwise should not come with a prison sentence. At least not for a first offense. If the gun is fired publicly then I think that intent should be a factor. In a case like Burress, he clearly did not intend to fire it and he didn't injure anyone other than himself. It was an accident that was the result of a stupid decision on his part. So instead of locking him up for 2 years, you fine the living crap out of him. Give him 300 hours of community service. Require him to take a weapons safety class at his own expense and suspend his ability to carry a weapon for X amount of time.  After he completes all court ordered requirements he can then apply to carry again. If he has a 2nd offense then you can lock him up for a few years.

I completely agree that legally carrying a gun should not come with a prison sentence.

I have no problem with more severe punishments for people publicly carrying weapons illegally.

ice grillin you

why should you ever legally be able to carry a gun in public?

i just dont understand this
i can take a phrase thats rarely heard...flip it....now its a daily word

igy gettin it done like warrick

im the board pharmacist....always one step above yous

Geowhizzer

A lot of people use the 2nd Amendment to justify for owning and carrying guns of all types.

Here is the actual text of the 2nd Amendment:

Quote from: The Bill of RightsA well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Historically, there had been no standing army in the United States, and people were called to enlist and fight as the need arose.  Partially to protect the rights of the states, which still thought of themselves as individual little nations at the time of the Constitutional Convention and were loathe to give up their own rights for the good of the collective nation.

I just wonder how the Founding Fathers would agree or disagree with the modern interpretations of this Amendment.

Rome


Diomedes

My position is clear and easy to state, and has nothing to do with taking guns away from law abiding citizens:

Illegal gun usage--menacing someone with one, carrying one, smuggling them, shooting at someone, injuring or killing someone with one, etc.---should all warrant the most severe sentences possible.  Getting three years all suspended pending completion of probation on an illegal carry conviction is ludicrous.  Jail for ten years is more appropriate.  You point a gun at someone...five years with all but 9 months suspended is awful.  It ought to be 20 years no parole. 

What the hell are prisons for if not to take people like this out of our way? 

I value the freedom to own guns in this country..legally.  Cross that line though and I'm hard pressed to think of crimes that deserve more harsh consequences.
There is considerable overlap between the intelligence of the smartest bears and the dumbest tourists." - Yosemite Park Ranger