2017: One Mass Shooting Per Month, Min

[calamity]

Gun crimes already have harsh sentences. Harsh punishments for the most part have no effect on crime...

Deterrence is based on the premise that humans are ‘rational’ and weigh the advantages and disadvantages of their actions. As a result, the pain of punishment must be equal to or more than the pleasure/benefits of crime in order to deter the public/individual from choosing to commit a crime.

However, does deterrence actually work? Short answer: no (with some shades of grey).

There is a growing acceptance that people commit crimes for reasons other than some rational decision-making process; people also commit crimes for psychological, social, or economic reasons. At least for me, I am skeptical (which is an understatement) that people think to themselves, “I choose to assault this person because the penalty does not currently outweigh the benefits of assaulting this person”. I am more inclined to believe that an assault would occur because of some psychological/social reason. - https://www.castanet.net/news/Law-Matters/68717/Do-severe-punishments-deter-crime

So now we know that will not work. Got anything else?

lol...just let everyone go then. Punishment doesn't deter. :roll:

 

[Rucker61]

I'd go for twenty, but ten sure beats probation.

See "Jalita Johnson" and "Daytron Mills"

 

[BretJ]

I think we can make a huge dent in gun homicides by simply identifying those who sell guns to people who are not legally allowed to have them. Just guessing, but I would say at least half of those 12,000 gun homicides are committed by people who bought guns off the street from legal gun owners.

No argument there. Several have proposed solutions to help reduce that. I have always liked having an "shall issue" endorsement on a driver's license or state issued ID that is removed if you are determined through legal proceedings to be a danger to yourself or others. The ID can be verified by a simple phone call or through the web by anyone. Presented anytime you wish to purchase ammo, firearms. Make the penalty for not checking so harsh, no one in their right mind would do so. That would prevent most straw dealers from doing so and drive the costs of obtaining a firearm illegally up exponentially to levels most criminals could not afford. Selling or giving a stolen gun would be subject to the same penalty. I think 25 years with no chance to be plea bargained down nor chance do parole seems to be a good starting point.

 

[Lovebug]

I think we can make a huge dent in gun homicides by simply identifying those who sell guns to people who are not legally allowed to have them. Just guessing, but I would say at least half of those 12,000 gun homicides are committed by people who bought guns off the street from legal gun owners.

Now we are getting somewhere.
So lets talk about who is allowed to have a gun. Those without record or blemish, right?
How do we identify them without hurting their feelings or compromising their privacy?
I don't have any stats, since we are opining, but I am guessing that most of the recent shootings could have been prevented not by invading legal citizen's rights to bear arms, but by speaking up when someone acts suspicious.
Hey, those guys have red flags all around them, but no one had the balls to say something.
But lets just say that Hodgkinson had been flagged and wasn't able to legally purchase a firearm.

 

[BretJ]

Gun crimes already have harsh sentences. Harsh punishments for the most part have no effect on crime...

Deterrence is based on the premise that humans are ‘rational’ and weigh the advantages and disadvantages of their actions. As a result, the pain of punishment must be equal to or more than the pleasure/benefits of crime in order to deter the public/individual from choosing to commit a crime.

However, does deterrence actually work? Short answer: no (with some shades of grey).

There is a growing acceptance that people commit crimes for reasons other than some rational decision-making process; people also commit crimes for psychological, social, or economic reasons. At least for me, I am skeptical (which is an understatement) that people think to themselves, “I choose to assault this person because the penalty does not currently outweigh the benefits of assaulting this person”. I am more inclined to believe that an assault would occur because of some psychological/social reason. - https://www.castanet.net/news/Law-Matters/68717/Do-severe-punishments-deter-crime

So now we know that will not work. Got anything else?

It does not deter some. But for those it does not deter it removes them from society.

 

[BretJ]

Harsh sentences for anyone caught selling a gun illegally, kind of like we do if some ghetto kid sells a crack rock.

The laws are already there. Do a search for how many are actually prosecuted if you really want to get pissed off.

 

[calamity]

The laws are already there. Do a search for how many are actually prosecuted if you really want to get pissed off.

Of course, enforcement of existing laws is much more effective than adding new laws which won't be enforced either.

IMO, we can look at the sharp reduction in DUI fatalities for our model. Cracking down on drunk drivers had two immediate results: took drunks off the road and deterred others from driving drunk. The long term result: a 50% reduction in drunk driving fatalities.

 

[Rucker61]

Of course, enforcement of existing laws is much more effective than adding new laws which won't be enforced either.

IMO, we can look at the sharp reduction in DUI fatalities for our model. Cracking down on drunk drivers had two immediate results: took drunks off the road and deterred others from driving drunk. The long term result: a 50% reduction in drunk driving fatalities.

All,of which was done by focusing on the crime itself, without any attempt to restrict purchase or ownership of cars or alcohol. I wholeheartedly support enforcement of the laws on straw purchases and Brady Act violations.

 

[calamity]

It does not deter some. But for those it does not deter it removes them from society.

Clearly.

I'm not sure what BD's game is here, but his post made no sense. All we need to do is look at how rapidly we lowered DUI related fatalities via permanently removing drunks drivers from the road and deterring others from driving drunk.

I do not know anyone anymore who is willing to drive after more than 2 or 3 drinks. I used to know dozens. Most of them have either reformed, adjusted their drinking habits to eliminate the driving part, or they haven't had a driver's license for five or ten years, choosing to drink everyday instead of drive.

 

[calamity]

All,of which was done by focusing on the crime itself, without any attempt to restrict purchase or ownership of cars or alcohol. I wholeheartedly support enforcement of the laws on straw purchases and Brady Act violations.

DUI efforts included the following:

1. Cops began to look for it on the road and pursue it during routine traffic stops
2. Courts began to hand down real sentences for it
3. Violators were taken off the road
4. DUI checkpoints to look for more
5. Massive ad campaign blitzes alerting everyone to 1-4 above.

Transferring the above to gun enforcement? IMO, hard crack downs on any illegal gun activity. Maybe even go "broken windows" theory on it and bust everyone doing anything illegal with a gun and put them through a DUI like wringer.

 

[Black Dog]

lol...just let everyone go then. Punishment doesn't deter. :roll:

That has nothing to do with anything. Punishment does not deter crime. This does not however get ride of the need for punishment for crime.

So I will take it that you have no answer as I figured.

 

[Black Dog]

It does not deter some. But for those it does not deter it removes them from society.

For how long? What is the recidivism rate?

 

[BretJ]

For how long? What is the recidivism rate?

For a mandatory 25 years it would be zero assuming they do not die before release. If they want to do it again, they would be taken off the streets for another 50....

 

[Black Dog]

For a mandatory 25 years it would be zero assuming they do not die before release. If they want to do it again, they would be taken off the streets for another 50....

That would be fine but most active shooters already get harsh sentences. I don't see it making much difference? Who was the last mass shooter or otherwise that got less than 25 years with no parole?

 

[Rucker61]

That would be fine but most active shooters already get harsh sentences. I don't see it making much difference? Who was the last mass shooter or otherwise that got less than 25 years with no parole?

Nothing would deter an active shooter.

 

[BretJ]

That would be fine but most active shooters already get harsh sentences. I don't see it making much difference? Who was the last mass shooter or otherwise that got less than 25 years with no parole?

I am referring to those that make straw purchases with criminal intent. Mass shooters are going to hate regardless of any law.

 

[BretJ]

That has nothing to do with anything. Punishment does not deter crime. This does not however get ride of the need for punishment for crime.

So I will take it that you have no answer as I figured.

More accurate to say punishment does not deter all crime.

 

[calamity]

That has nothing to do with anything. Punishment does not deter crime. This does not however get ride of the need for punishment for crime.

So I will take it that you have no answer as I figured.

It got the answer it deserved. And, as we saw with how DUI fatalities were reduced by enforcement and harsher sentences deterring others from driving drunk, I proved you wrong. Again.

 

[Rucker61]

It got the answer it deserved. And, as we saw with how DUI fatalities were reduced by enforcement and harsher sentences deterring others from driving drunk, I proved you wrong. Again.

Which had nothing to do with restrictions on cars or alcohol. No one here is saying that better enforcement of existing gun laws is a bad thing.

 

[calamity]

Which had nothing to do with restrictions on cars or alcohol. No one here is saying that better enforcement of existing gun laws is a bad thing.

Uh, you apparently haven't read BD's take. Have you? He seems to think that there is no such thing as deterrence though threat of punishment.

But, if the rest of us agree, that would be a good thing. Maybe it's time we get someone in charge to listen.

 

[Rucker61]

Uh, you apparently haven't read BD's take. Have you? He seems to think that there is no such thing as deterrence though threat of punishment.

But, if the rest of us agree, that would be a good thing. Maybe it's time we get someone in charge to listen.

Did he not indicate that keeping criminals in prison keeps them from committing crimes, which is a good reason to enforce the laws?

 

[Black Dog]

I am referring to those that make straw purchases with criminal intent. Mass shooters are going to hate regardless of any law.

A straw purchase is already a criminal offence and includes intent. 25 years for a straw purchase would be ridicules. The punishment must fit the crime. That would not pass Constitutional muster.

 

[Black Dog]

Uh, you apparently haven't read BD's take. Have you? He seems to think that there is no such thing as deterrence though threat of punishment.

But, if the rest of us agree, that would be a good thing. Maybe it's time we get someone in charge to listen.

I said no such thing. I said it is not a good deterrent. Please stop with the exaggerations. People might start taking your posts seriously rather than the joke they are.

 

[Black Dog]

It got the answer it deserved. And, as we saw with how DUI fatalities were reduced by enforcement and harsher sentences deterring others from driving drunk, I proved you wrong. Again.

You have not even proved me wrong on anything let alone now. 50% to 70% Of those convicted of DUI continue to drive with suspended licences.

The drop recently literally has nothing at all to do with harsher sentencing...

DUIs in Georgia drop nearly 50% - DUIs in Georgia drop nearly 50% ... one reason why might surprise you | WSB-TV

DUI deaths are up, not down.

So who have you proved wrong? LMAO!

 

[Black Dog]

More accurate to say punishment does not deter all crime.

Punishment does not deter MOST crime. There is absolutely no correlation between crime and punishment as a deterrent.