Should people who commit violent crimes with a firearm be punished more severely

[jamesrage]

Did you notice that none of my examples involved death?

All of those are things that can be used as deadly weapons. Why should they be treated differently if you are assaulted with any of those things or if your life is threatened with any of those things? If one guy took a knife and stabbed you in the hand and twisted it back and fourth and some time later someone else shot you in the other hand why should the person who used a knife get a lighter sentence than the person who shot you in the hand?

 

[RightinNYC]

All of those are things that can be used as deadly weapons. Why should they be treated differently if you are assaulted with any of those things or if your life is threatened with any of those things? If one guy took a knife and stabbed you in the hand and twisted it back and fourth and some time later someone else shot you in the other hand why should the person who used a knife get a lighter sentence than the person who shot you in the hand?

Because there is more danger resulting from each of those examples involving a gun than those involving the other weapon, which is why we have additional laws to deter people from using them.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

I will have to say "no, current punishment is fine".

Then again, I'm of the opinion that it's not the weapon that's issue, but the violence.

Is it somehow more heinous to be robbed, and then murdered by a man with a gun, or by a man with a knife?

Becuase of the bloody and more physically violent means of death a knife requires, is not the death by knife indicative of a greater inner savagery in the criminal?

How about if the victim is robbed, then beaten to death with a club? That requires even more exertion by the criminal. Would that not then be even more abhorrent than death by either gun or knife?

What if the victim was beaten to death with the criminal's fists. That's the most physical exertion, isn't it? Would than not therefore be indicative of the most savage of criminal personalities?

Know what?

Doesn't matter. If a man is killed, he's dead regardless, and the minimum prison sentence should be long enough that the criminal isn't physically able to pull a trigger before he's released, let alone wield any other weapon.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

All of those are things that can be used as deadly weapons. Why should they be treated differently if you are assaulted with any of those things or if your life is threatened with any of those things? If one guy took a knife and stabbed you in the hand and twisted it back and fourth and some time later someone else shot you in the other hand why should the person who used a knife get a lighter sentence than the person who shot you in the hand?

Because no one's ever seen a knife jump up off the table on it's own and hurt someone.

Oh, wait, they've never seen a gun do that either.

 

[RightinNYC]

I will have to say "no, current punishment is fine".

Then again, I'm of the opinion that it's not the weapon that's issue, but the violence.

Is it somehow more heinous to be robbed, and then murdered by a man with a gun, or by a man with a knife?

Becuase of the bloody and more physically violent means of death a knife requires, is not the death by knife indicative of a greater inner savagery in the criminal?

How about if the victim is robbed, then beaten to death with a club? That requires even more exertion by the criminal. Would that not then be even more abhorrent than death by either gun or knife?

What if the victim was beaten to death with the criminal's fists. That's the most physical exertion, isn't it? Would than not therefore be indicative of the most savage of criminal personalities?

Know what?

Doesn't matter. If a man is killed, he's dead regardless, and the minimum prison sentence should be long enough that the criminal isn't physically able to pull a trigger before he's released, let alone wield any other weapon.

I'll ask you - which of each of these choices would you prefer?

1) A person who is robbing you fires a gun at you and misses v. a person who's robbing you swings a baseball bat at you and misses?

2) Getting stabbed in the leg v. getting shot in the leg?

3) Having a gun shoved in your face v. having brass knuckles waved in your face?

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

I'll ask you - which of each of these choices would you prefer?

1) A person who is robbing you fires a gun at you and misses v. a person who's robbing you swings a baseball bat at you and misses?

So long as they both miss, I don't care.

2) Getting stabbed in the leg v. getting shot in the leg?

Truthfully? Getting shot, depending on the weapon, is likely to cause less damage and minimize the chances of infection.

3) Having a gun shoved in your face v. having brass knuckles waved in your face?

Why not shove the brass nucks up and make things even? Properly used nucks can break a skull and cause permanent death. Bad thing, that, permanent death.

I've had guns waved in my face. Didn't seem to do any lasting harm.

You see, guns don't hurt you until the trigger is pulled.

A LOT of people are willing to cut you.

Even more are willing to hit you.

Damn few are willing to shoot you, even when they're waving the gun around. The modern whiner theory of guns for the TV Generations is that guns are magic, people pointing guns are obeyed without question. The Victim TV Child believes this as implicitly as the Criminal TV Child, so the theory works, for them.

I'm a rotten s.o.b. The Magic Command power of guns doesn't exist for me. I'm more concerned about people using knives.

But hey, how about if I'm allowed to pack my own heat and make things even, instead of arranging it so only the criminals have the guns?

 

[RightinNYC]

So long as they both miss, I don't care.

Bull****. But let's pretend that it's not - what happens to the baseball bat when it misses you? What happens to the bullet when it misses you? Can you think of a reason why society might deem one more dangerous than the other and punish it accordingly?

Truthfully? Getting shot, depending on the weapon, is likely to cause less damage and minimize the chances of infection.

lol, link?

Again, I would wager that if I offered 100 people to shoot them in the leg or stab them, 100 would ask for the stabbing.

Why not shove the brass nucks up and make things even?

wut

Properly used nucks can break a skull and cause permanent death.

Unlike a gun.

I've had guns waved in my face. Didn't seem to do any lasting harm.

You see, guns don't hurt you until the trigger is pulled.

Point?

A LOT of people are willing to cut you.

Even more are willing to hit you.

Damn few are willing to shoot you, even when they're waving the gun around. The modern whiner theory of guns for the TV Generations is that guns are magic, people pointing guns are obeyed without question. The Victim TV Child believes this as implicitly as the Criminal TV Child, so the theory works, for them.

I'm a rotten s.o.b. The Magic Command power of guns doesn't exist for me. I'm more concerned about people using knives.

okay dude

But hey, how about if I'm allowed to pack my own heat and make things even, instead of arranging it so only the criminals have the guns?

Where did I say I oppose that? Nice strawman, strawman.

 

[jamesrage]

Because there is more danger resulting from each of those examples involving a gun than those involving the other weapon,

No there is not.I hit you in the head with a baseball bat or brass knuckles you have just much of a chance of dying as me shooting you head in the head,both are not always fatal but most of the time both are fatal.If I stab you in the heart or some other vital organ you have the same chance of dying as me shooting shooting you in the heart or some other vital organ.

The only reason for imposing additional punishments is to demonize fire arms.Because if you get beaten to death with a bat,brass knuckles,stabbed,shot or even ran over by a car on purpose it is not going to make a difference to your loved ones what was used to murder you.They are only going to care about who did it and seeing the murderer punished to the fullest extent of the law.

I'll ask you this again.
If one guy took a knife and stabbed you in the hand and twisted it back and fourth and some time later someone else shot you in the other hand why should the person who used a knife get a lighter sentence than the person who shot you in the hand?

Can you think of a reason why society might deem one more dangerous than the other and punish it accordingly?

Demonization of fire arms and the idiocy that being murdered with a weapon other than a fire arm somehow makes a difference.

 

[RightinNYC]

No there is not.I hit you in the head with a baseball bat or brass knuckles you have just much of a chance of dying as me shooting you head in the head,both are not always fatal but most of the time both are fatal.If I stab you in the heart or some other vital organ you have the same chance of dying as me shooting shooting you in the heart or some other vital organ.

Says who? I'd wager that the fatality rate of getting shot is higher than the fatality rate of getting hit/stabbed/whatever for pretty much every part of the body.

The only reason for imposing additional punishments is to demonize fire arms.Because if you get beaten to death with a bat,brass knuckles,stabbed,shot or even ran over by a car on purpose it is not going to make a difference to your loved ones what was used to murder you.They are only going to care about who did it and seeing the murderer punished to the fullest extent of the law.

The point is that it's worth disincentivizing.

I'll ask you this again.
If one guy took a knife and stabbed you in the hand and twisted it back and fourth and some time later someone else shot you in the other hand why should the person who used a knife get a lighter sentence than the person who shot you in the hand?

1) Because it's less likely to cause serious injury
2) Because it's less likely to injure others
3) Because we want to disincentivize violent gun crimes

Demonization of fire arms and the idiocy that being murdered with a weapon other than a fire arm somehow makes a difference.

Cut it with the "OMG if you support any gun-related laws you hate teh guns!!" crap. I love guns. They're great. I'm just capable of understanding that there are legitimate reasons why we should disincentivize the use of a gun in a violent crime marginally more than other weapons.

(And the answer to the question that you missed was that THE BULLET GOES SOMEWHERE)

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Guns are more dangerous than other weapons for one simple reason: you don't kill innocent bystanders accidentally when you miss an attack with a knife or a club.

I just don't think that's a relevant factor when discussing what the appropriate response to crime is.

 

[jamesrage]

.

Says who? I'd wager that the fatality rate of getting shot is higher than the fatality rate of getting hit/stabbed/whatever for pretty much every part of the body.

It depends where you got stabbed or shot that depends on the fatality of that wound. If you were murdered with a baseball bat do you think your loved ones are going to somehow feel better because you were murdered with a bat instead of a gun?

The point is that it's worth disincentivizing.

Then why not apply the same standard to assault and murder involving all weapons?If you got murdered it isn't going to matter what weapon was used or what was used to kill you.

1) Because it's less likely to cause serious injury

Not if that knife is hit in a vital area or is twisted

2) Because it's less likely to injure others

Does the law ignore their injuries or deaths because they were hit with stray bullets?Please cite examples of these.

3) Because we want to disincentivize violent gun crimes

No because liberals such as your self wish to demonize firearms by making the same crimes carry a stiffer punishment. Murder with a gun a should carry the same sentence as murder with any other weapon.

Cut it with the "OMG if you support any gun-related laws you hate teh guns!!" crap. I love guns. They're great. I'm just capable of understanding that there are legitimate reasons why we should disincentivize the use of a gun in a violent crime marginally more than other weapons.

Just like a lib to try to claim the pro-2nd amendment side is paranoid.

(And the answer to the question that you missed was that THE BULLET GOES SOMEWHERE)

Who knows where the bullet goes. IS there this loop hole that says you can get away with killing or injuring someone if you miss your intended target and that bullet hits someone else?

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Bull****. But let's pretend that it's not - what happens to the baseball bat when it misses you?

The assailant is standing right there, he takes another swing. Jeez, didn't you see The Warriors?

What happens to the bullet when it misses you?

It keeps going, it's almost, but not quite, like the dum-dum bullets in Who Framed Roger Rabbit.

Can you think of a reason why society might deem one more dangerous than the other and punish it accordingly?

Stupidity? Perhaps ignorance? How about lack of guts?

lol, link?

Think about it.

If I have to stab someone in the leg, you can be damn sure it's going to be a puncture...followed by a twist and an upward rip to maximize the damage, and I can shave with my knives. A bullet is a puncture. If it happens to knick the femoral artery, too bad. Guaranteed with a knife, I'll be hunting that puppy.

Guns aren't more dangerous than knives, if you're dumb enough to allow a knifeman get that close to you. The only advantage a gun has is it's ability to allow your assailant stand out of your reach. Neither is "deadlier" than the other, if the assailant with the gun is stupid enough to stand close to you.

Thus, it's pointless to charge the gunman with a more serious crime with more serious punishment than a knifeman...because the man that chooses the knife is more dangerous by any real measure. Any fool an pull a trigger.

Again, I would wager that if I offered 100 people to shoot them in the leg or stab them, 100 would ask for the stabbing.

I'm not one of that 100, and those hundred you're talking about? They're ignorant.

Point?

Guns don't hurt when they're not being fired.

What do you think I may have meant when I said "You see, guns don't hurt you until the trigger is pulled. "

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

No there is not.I hit you in the head with a baseball bat or brass knuckles you have just much of a chance of dying as me shooting you head in the head,both are not always fatal but most of the time both are fatal.If I stab you in the heart or some other vital organ you have the same chance of dying as me shooting shooting you in the heart or some other vital organ.

Says who? I'd wager that the fatality rate of getting shot is higher than the fatality rate of getting hit/stabbed/whatever for pretty much every part of the body.

Doubtful...I'm pretty sure a knife that penetrates the skull stirs the brain around pretty thoroughly.

Then again, a person using a knife, that knows what they're doing, enters below the sternum with the edge of the blade up and drives up to the heart, eviscerating before killing. Death be exsanguination frequently occurs if the heart isn't hit.

The point is that it's worth disincentivizing.

No. Murder and violent assault are worth disincentivizing. Focusing on some methods of assualt and not others is fairly irrational.

1) Because it's less likely to cause serious injury
2) Because it's less likely to injure others
3) Because we want to disincentivize violent gun crimes

1) is wrong.
2) is semi-valid, but not completely so.
3) three is circular, you're saying that we should disincentivize gun use because disincentivizing gun use will disincentivize gun use.

Cut it with the "OMG if you support any gun-related laws you hate teh guns!!" crap. I love guns. They're great. I'm just capable of understanding that there are legitimate reasons why we should disincentivize the use of a gun in a violent crime marginally more than other weapons.

You didn't list but part of one, out of three you listed.

(And the answer to the question that you missed was that THE BULLET GOES SOMEWHERE)

And the question you didn't ask is that if someone is willing to fire guns in a crowded public place, they already don't care about the consequences and your attempt at raising the stakes for using a firearm to commit a crime is not going to affect them.

If they're already willing to take the risk of shooting the person in front of them, which already carries a sentence of life in prison, if not death, if the victim dies, what exactly are the further penalties that can be added to deter that person if he fires the weapon and doesn't hit his intended target, but kills or injures someone else?

None.

Therefore, the fact that the shooter might miss has no impact on his decision to fire the weapon. And your argument along those lines is rendered moot.

 

[Tucker Case]

Guns are more dangerous than other weapons for one simple reason: you don't kill innocent bystanders accidentally when you miss an attack with a knife or a club.

I just don't think that's a relevant factor when discussing what the appropriate response to crime is.

Range is a huge difference.

I can defend my self even if weaponless against a knife or a club because to kill me, the attack will have to get in close range.

But if the attacker has a gun, I'm ****ed. He can kill me from a hundred feet away and I can't do **** to him.

Crimes committed with ranged weapons should have a stiffer penalty than those that must be used close range simply because they decrease the chances for successful defense.

Instead of banning the weapons, we should be as harsh as possible on those who use the weapons for nefarious means.

 

[Goshin]

Says who? I'd wager that the fatality rate of getting shot is higher than the fatality rate of getting hit/stabbed/whatever for pretty much every part of the body.

The point is that it's worth disincentivizing.

1) Because it's less likely to cause serious injury
2) Because it's less likely to injure others
3) Because we want to disincentivize violent gun crimes

Ever seen real stab wounds? I have. They're bad, they often make a bigger hole than gunshot wounds. A 4" knife can make a hole 7" deep through tissue compression. If they know enough to stab in full and then wrench the blade sideways, the wounds can be enormous.

People who use knives to kill, in most cases, stab repeatedly. Knives never run out of ammo, and some people are found with 20, 30, 40 or more stab wounds. The level of brutality in knife slayings is truly horrific.

A severed femoral artery in your leg is often fatal. The fact that most bullets make a small round hole (even hollowpoints don't make the sort of gaping wounds knives can) and knives have a wide cutting profile, could make a stab in the leg more likely to sever the femoral, causing bleed-out very quickly without medical aid.

A deadly weapon is a deadly weapon, is a deadly weapon. Period.


How about, instead of "discouraging firearm crimes", we just flat out discourage violent crime PERIOD and quit worrying about the tool used?

G.

 

[Goshin]

Range is a huge difference.
...
But if the attacker has a gun, I'm ****ed. He can kill me from a hundred feet away and I can't do **** to him.
...
Crimes committed with ranged weapons should have a stiffer penalty than those that must be used close range simply because they decrease the chances for successful defense.

A common tactical misunderstanding.

Most criminal shootings occur at a distance of less than 7 feet, many at 3' or less. The average thug can't hit sh** at 100' except by sheer luck. Most of them can't shoot for sh** at 20'. If you're running dodging and ducking for cover, they'd need a pocket full of four-leaf clovers to get that lucky. Trust me, personal experience.

A dealer and a buyer met at a certain spot, on mopeds. The buyer pulled a 9mm and opened fire, intending to steal the drugs. The dealer returned fire with his 9mm. The distance was perhaps 20'.
Thirty shots were fired in total. Neither dealer nor buyer had a scratch, nor were any bystanders hurt.
You have to understand cop humor maybe, but we thought it was pretty funny.

G.