• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Gun-control debate could use more facts, less emotion

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bikenut

Guest
Yes, the situation you describe would be "insane." I would prefer the justice system be changed to the point that once you serve your time and pay your debt to society then you regain your full citizen status with all rights and privileges restored, even the right to own/possess/carry a firearm...with the caveat that if the person is deemed too dangerous or unstable to exercise those rights and privileges in a responsible manner then they shouldn't be released, ever.

Bronson
I agree fully. If a convicted criminal can't be trusted with a gun then they can't be trusted with a knife, a ball bat, a car, or a rock, and need to be kept in prison and out of society.

After all... a gun is just something a criminal uses to inflict harm.... and a criminal intent on inflicting harm will use anything including a gun, ball bat, rocks, knives, and even fists and feet, to do that harm.

Logic dictates that it isn't the ball bat, the knife, the rock, or the gun, that inflicts harm but is the criminal using those things to inflict harm so how about we finally grasp the concept that gun control doesn't control criminals before they commit a crime nor does it prevent the criminal from finding future victims after they have been released from prison.

So... the real question isn't whether released criminals should have the right to keep and bear arms and actually the real question doesn't even have anything to do with guns at all.....the question is...

If the idea is to protect people from being harmed by violent criminals why do we keep releasing violent criminals?
 

Ezerharden

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2011
Messages
723
Location
Erie, MI
I agree fully. If a convicted criminal can't be trusted with a gun then they can't be trusted with a knife, a ball bat, a car, or a rock, and need to be kept in prison and out of society.

After all... a gun is just something a criminal uses to inflict harm.... and a criminal intent on inflicting harm will use anything including a gun, ball bat, rocks, knives, and even fists and feet, to do that harm.

Logic dictates that it isn't the ball bat, the knife, the rock, or the gun, that inflicts harm but is the criminal using those things to inflict harm so how about we finally grasp the concept that gun control doesn't control criminals before they commit a crime nor does it prevent the criminal from finding future victims after they have been released from prison.

So... the real question isn't whether released criminals should have the right to keep and bear arms and actually the real question doesn't even have anything to do with guns at all.....the question is...

If the idea is to protect people from being harmed by violent criminals why do we keep releasing violent criminals?

Maybe not enough prison space? Maybe poor sentencing guidelines? To be honest, in the "Utopian fantasy land" you describe, there would be no need for guns at all, but that ain't the way it is here in a place most of us like to call "Reality", and in that world it is proven that recidivism runs rampant.
 
B

Bikenut

Guest
Maybe not enough prison space? Maybe poor sentencing guidelines? To be honest, in the "Utopian fantasy land" you describe, there would be no need for guns at all, but that ain't the way it is here in a place most of us like to call "Reality", and in that world it is proven that recidivism runs rampant.

So not enough prison space and poor sentencing guidelines are reason enough to release violent criminals from prison?

And my "Utopian fantasy land" that you referred to has the same need to have guns to protect from the criminal committing his first crime that lands him in prison. (Not to mention the whole idea of the 2nd Amendment of defending from tyranny doesn't go away just because common criminals are put in prison.)

And let me point out that the part of your post I put in bold is often used to justify not allowing violent criminals that have been released from owning/carrying guns when, in a place most of us like to call "Reality", it has been proven many released criminals still own and carry guns anyway. So... what exactly is the point of not allowing released criminals to own guns?

The simple truth is... because of recidivism... because violent criminals who do not obey laws that say they are not allowed to have guns still have guns and still use them to commit more crimes after they have been released... is the most logical reason to not release violent criminals from prison!! in the first place.

In my not so humble opinion... folks who think a law that says a criminal is not "allowed" to have a gun will actually stop that criminal from having a gun is the one using "Utopian world" thinking.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Shadow Bear

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Dec 17, 2010
Messages
1,004
Location
Grand Rapids
This is an intentional and blatant misrepresentation of the facts in an attempt to disparage one of your own. BTW, it's illegal too.

For the record, it never happened,

And you know this how? The offender plead out, as I recall. Why would an innocent person plead out? If it never happened, there would be no criminal record....
 

mikestilly

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2009
Messages
1,869
Location
Macomb County, Michigan, USA
And you know this how? The offender plead out, as I recall. Why would an innocent person plead out? If it never happened, there would be no criminal record....

Shadow bear why continue a nonstop OT conversation. Against the rules of the forum. I shouldn't encourage you by replying to the ill conceived statement but A LOT OF INNOCENT PEOPLE PLEAD OUT DURING THE COURSE OF A TRIAL! Just like many people don't understand how to protect their rights under the law and capitulate to over zealous prosecutors. As an example a murderer like OJ Simpson could get off primarily due to his large capital to obtain the most unbelievable dream team of lawyers. People who don't have the resources or the knowledge to defend themselves properly the possibility to being forced to take the best deal they could get. I in know way support criminals but I can tell you this I've seen many people charged with firearm offenses simply from open carrying a firearm legally. I've seen unreal harassment. I have a YouTube site filled with videos of OCrs who were harassed and sometimes procecuted wrongly. Http://www.youtube.com/opencarrymi It would probably be better not to jump to conclusions or accuse people of things or make assumptions of things you don't understand.

I remember an OCr in particular that was being charged with violating his CPL which he wasnt even close to doing. There was even video proof. The procecutor was very over zealous to violate him. Around 20+ OCrs including me showed up to support him in court and his attorney told us that the #1 reason the procecutor dropped his charges was because he didn't want protests to start and attention brought to the city. People are charged with things all the time and sometimes they plea to lesser charges but it in no way means they actually committed any crimes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Big Gay Al

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Messages
1,944
Location
Mason, Michigan, USA
Can I ask, what happened to "More facts and less emotion?" Seems to me the emotions are running a bit high right now. Maybe everyone should take a moment to calm down, reflect on what has been posted, and maybe decide if they should maybe edit some of their responses?
 

mikestilly

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2009
Messages
1,869
Location
Macomb County, Michigan, USA
Can I ask, what happened to "More facts and less emotion?" Seems to me the emotions are running a bit high right now. Maybe everyone should take a moment to calm down, reflect on what has been posted, and maybe decide if they should maybe edit some of their responses?

I agree Al. Let me start here are some facts to start. Source: http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm


Highlights

* Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year—or about 6,850 times a day.(1) This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.(2)

* Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense with a firearm every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America"—a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.(3)

* Concealed carry laws have reduced murder and crime rates in the states that have enacted them. According to a comprehensive study which reviewed crime statistics in every county in the United States from 1977 to 1992, states which passed concealed carry laws reduced their rate of murder by 8.5%, rape by 5%, aggravated assault by 7% and robbery by 3%.(4)

* Anti-gun journal pronounces the failure of the Brady law. One of the nation’s leading anti-gun medical publications, the Journal of the American Medical Association, found that the Brady registration law has failed to reduce murder rates. In August 2000, JAMA reported that states implementing waiting periods and background checks did "not [experience] reductions in homicide rates or overall suicide rates."(5)

* Twice as many children are killed playing football in school than are murdered by guns. That’s right. Despite what media coverage might seem to indicate, there are more deaths related to high school football than guns. In a recent three year period, twice as many football players died from hits to the head, heat stroke, etc. (45), as compared with students who were murdered by firearms (22) during that same time period.(6)

* More guns, less crime. In the decade of the 1990s, the number of guns in this country increased by roughly 40 million—even while the murder rate decreased by almost 40% percent.7 Accidental gun deaths in the home decreased by almost 40 percent as well.(8)

* CDC admits there is no evidence that gun control reduces crime. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has long been criticized for propagating questionable studies which gun control organizations have used in defense of their cause. But after analyzing 51 studies in 2003, the CDC concluded that the "evidence was insufficient to determine the effectiveness of any of these [firearms] laws."(9)

* Gun shows are NOT a primary source of illegal guns for criminals. According to two government studies, the National Institute of Justice reported in 1997 that "less than two percent [of criminals] reported obtaining [firearms] from a gun show."(10) And the Bureau of Justice Statistics revealed in 2001 that less than one percent of firearm offenders acquired their weapons at gun shows.(11)

* Several polls show that Americans are very pro-gun. Several scientific polls indicate that the right to keep and bear arms is still revered—and gun control disdained—by a majority of Americans today. To mention just a few recent polls:

* In 2002, an ABC News poll found that almost three-fourths of the American public believe that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects the rights of "individuals" to own guns.(12)

* Zogby pollsters found that by a more than 3 to 1 margin, Americans support punishing "criminals who use a gun in the commission of a crime" over legislation to "ban handguns."(13)

* A Research 2000 poll found that 85% of Americans would find it appropriate for a principal or teacher to use "a gun at school to defend the lives of students" to stop a school massacre.(14)

* A study claiming "guns are three times more likely to kill you than help you" is a total fraud. Even using the low figures from the Clinton Justice Department, firearms are used almost 50 times more often to save life than to take life.(15) More importantly, however, the figure claiming one is three times more likely to be killed by one’s own gun is a total lie:

* Researcher Don Kates reveals that all available data now indicates that the "home gun homicide victims [in the flawed study] were killed using guns not kept in the victim's home."(16)

* In other words, the victims were NOT murdered with their own guns! They were killed "by intruders who brought their own guns to the victim's household."(17)

* Gun-free England not such a utopia after all. According to the BBC News, handgun crime in the United Kingdom rose by 40% in the two years after it passed its draconian gun ban in 1997.(18) And according to a United Nations study, British citizens are more likely to become a victim of crime than are people in the United States. The 2000 report shows that the crime rate in England is higher than the crime rates of 16 other industrialized nations, including the United States.(19)
 

Raggs

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2012
Messages
1,181
Location
Wild Wild West Michigan
Do you really like having all those misspelled words? "A Lot" is 2 words, not one. It's "innocent" not "innocient." And "overzellos" is 2 words, "over" and "zealous." Not to mention, it's "prosecutors" not "procecutors." Pull out a dictionary and look sometimes, you might be surprised.

BGA but do you have any comment on the thoughts he was sharing or just being the spelling police?
 

HKcarrier

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2011
Messages
816
Location
michigan
To be clear, I am in no way saying it's time to get violent, only saying that the ability to wage war is the purpose of the second amendment, and we need to protect the bill of rights now so that it doesn't come to that later.

Similar to OC, I think just the fact that it's there keeps tyrants at bay. Should the 2A be repealed, I firmly believe it would only be a matter of years or a decade until things went very VERY far down hill to a scary police type state.



Oh so a person rapes and kills a woman with a gun, serves time, gets out, and gets another gun and does it again. Interesting theory but completely insane. And just FYI I have never been convicted of any crimes beyond a speeding ticket, can you say the same?


Case in point: The guy who just shot the firefighters.. repeat offender.

Now of course, current law didn't keep him from acquiring firearms, however I think you play you pay as far as violent crime goes..
 

Ezerharden

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2011
Messages
723
Location
Erie, MI
Case in point: The guy who just shot the firefighters.. repeat offender.

Now of course, current law didn't keep him from acquiring firearms, however I think you play you pay as far as violent crime goes..

Yep, so why make it legal for him to own a gun? By making it legal you are condoning his violent history and actions.
 

Ezerharden

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2011
Messages
723
Location
Erie, MI
And yes, I have had some convictions, and I'm proud of it. They all, are battle scars of freedom. An assault of police officer and disorderly, those were for standing my ground against one of those cops trying to find himself on youtube, (we have all seen countless examples that have infuriated us). A couple standing up against prohibition, and one for standing up for open carry. It's the world we live in.

Proud of convictions huh? Now that is a red flag if ever I saw one. You are proud to have been convicted of criminal activity, no wonder you are all for felons having their firearms rights returned, you may need that some day.
 

Ezerharden

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2011
Messages
723
Location
Erie, MI
Well for myself I prefer not to have people who have a demonstrated desire to abuse their right of firearms ownership by preying on others to have firearms again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Evil Creamsicle

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2009
Messages
1,264
Location
Police State, USA
Similar to OC, I think just the fact that it's there keeps tyrants at bay. Should the 2A be repealed, I firmly believe it would only be a matter of years or a decade until things went very VERY far down hill to a scary police type state.

Correction, if the 2A was flat out repealed, there would be a civil war immediately.
 

TheQ

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
3,379
Location
Lansing, Michigan
This is an intentional and blatant misrepresentation of the facts in an attempt to disparage one of your own. BTW, it's illegal too.

For the record, it never happened,

No names were mentioned. I just happen to say that some may feel the same way about a person who is reckless with a child's safety (for example). If you know someone like that (maybe yourself) the application of my comment to a given case was entirely on you *shrugs*
 
Last edited:

TheQ

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
3,379
Location
Lansing, Michigan
Simple, it's all been posted in detail in the forums.

The prosecutor played a very typical card when they have a weak case against a defendant. They threaten with some exorbitant charge, if you don't accept their "deal". The person doesn't want to gamble more than they can afford to lose, so they take a plea. The offender in this case, never plead guilty, either in, or out of court, and still maintains his innocence, though he has really nothing to gain by doing so.

http://freekeene.com/2011/03/03/new-flyer-dont-take-the-plea-deal-now-for-nh-and-national/
 

HKcarrier

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2011
Messages
816
Location
michigan
The second amendment makes it legal by default. Gun laws that violate that constitution may say otherwise, but the oath they swore to would have been broken (read illegal), in order to violate that persons rights.





Yes, proud of convictions. Standing up for your or others rights, and any convictions would be then, honorable.

Laws are made by politicians, who at times, pass laws that are illegal, unconstitutional, or are passed for political, personal, or monetary gain, or without or directly against the will of the people. All a law really is, are the thoughts of politicians, criminals in their own right. Snakes, deceitful workers of iniquity. Yet here you sit in judgement of those who dare go against the thoughts of these, people, these politicians. Politicians aren't the most honorable folk, and supporting their ideas automatically just because they wrote them down somewhere, and will enforce their will on people under threat of violence or death, says a lot about you or anyone else of a similar mindset.





By your logic, it's unconstitutional to remove their constitutionally protected rights in order to incarcerate them. What a ridiculous assertion that someone cannot have their rights defaulted as a result of their criminal conviction or that it's somehow unconstitutional to remove their 2A rights because they committed a violent crime. DURRRRR -ALL- their rights were removed for a time... "paying their debt" for the crime they were convicted of doesn't make them a non-violent person upon release.

Some days you sound like you don't have a lick of common sense left in you....

jamesk_say-no-to-pot_77350.jpg
 

Ezerharden

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2011
Messages
723
Location
Erie, MI
Yes, proud of convictions. Standing up for your or others rights, and any convictions would be then, honorable.

Laws are made by politicians, who at times, pass laws that are illegal, unconstitutional, or are passed for political, personal, or monetary gain, or without or directly against the will of the people. All a law really is, are the thoughts of politicians, criminals in their own right. Snakes, deceitful workers of iniquity. Yet here you sit in judgement of those who dare go against the thoughts of these, people, these politicians. Politicians aren't the most honorable folk, and supporting their ideas automatically just because they wrote them down somewhere, and will enforce their will on people under threat of violence or death, says a lot about you or anyone else of a similar mindset.

Just who do you think you are, Nelson Mandala? Perhaps you are a wanna be anarchist. No laws at all, just the rule of the strongest (which would leave you out in the cold). I remember someone else always spouting off about what others should do, file lawsuits, face prosecution, etc that lacked the moral convictions to do that themselves. I wonder if you are both named Neil.

As to obeying the law, yes I do. I also try to work to change things within the context of the law, not circumvent it. More gun control is as useless now as it was before, however it needs to be changed LEGALLY, a term I believe you are unfamiliar with.
 

Big Gay Al

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Messages
1,944
Location
Mason, Michigan, USA
BGA but do you have any comment on the thoughts he was sharing or just being the spelling police?
I pretty much shared my thoughts before hand. I think the conversation in this thread was getting way too emotional.

As for being spelling police, yes, I corrected it, he put it back using the same misspellings as before.

I have no idea why. I have further thoughts on the matter but, I have decided to keep quiet on that for other reasons.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top