Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
To pro gun control folks, it isn't freedom being lost, it is freedom being gained. The pro 2nd amendment group in WA is shrinking by the day.
Here is a thought instead of trying to erode the freedoms of a law abiding citizen, how about much harsher punishment for people that use GUN in the commission of crimes.
Minimum of a 15 year sentence for commission of a crime with a firearm, no plea bargaining allowed, and make it accumulative, if they shoot at 2 people that would be 30 years.
Here is a thought instead of trying to erode the freedoms of a law abiding citizen, how about much harsher punishment for people that use GUN in the commission of crimes.
Minimum of a 15 year sentence for commission of a crime with a firearm, no plea bargaining allowed, and make it accumulative, if they shoot at 2 people that would be 30 years.
What good is punishment to a shooter on a suicide mission though?
What good is punishment to a shooter on a suicide mission though?
News flash: If someone is intent on harming others, no law in the world will stop them. Laws merely define the punishment that they could receive after their crime.
Last edited by JimRom; 10-04-2018 at 05:57 PM..
Reason: spelling
Nes flash: If someone is intent on harming others, no law in the world will stop them. Laws merely define the punishment that they could receive after their crime.
Exactly punishing the people breaking the law in the first place, instead of punishing millions of people who have not broken the law.
Exactly punishing the people breaking the law in the first place, instead of punishing millions of people who have not broken the law.
I think the main difference between any statist (whether they be on the left or the right) and the rest of us is that statists think laws magically stop criminal behavior. Unfortunately for them, history shows that this just isn't true. No law in history has ever stopped a criminal. Some may be deterred by harsh penalties, but not a single determined criminal has ever said "I'm not going to do that because it's against the law."
This is why I have an issue with the leftist trend toward treating criminals with kid gloves. When you make the harsh punishments less likely, you increase the chance that people will commit crime.
Never said it would. But most of the mass shootings that get attention are suicide shooters. Again I don't support it.
But the parents of a school shooter who used their unsecured weapons would have some accountability with this.
Where do you stop. Around here, guns are accessible because many young people go hunting. So say this kid starts hunting at age 10. Then snaps at 18 and shoots someone. You would charge their parents for them having access to guns? Or because of the slight possibility it could happen you deny all young people the right to hunt? Sounds extremely unfair to me.
What good is punishment to a shooter on a suicide mission though?
What good does it do to punish the law abiding though? Armed civilians have stopped many mass shooters, anti gun nuts would rather let the shooter on a suicide mission do whatever he wants. All the laws you push won't stop them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
