Why do non-law abiding citizens not have problems with gun control?

You either misunderstand, or deliberately misinterpret.

The only ones who face prosecution for firearm-related offenses, are those who have no criminal record, and are caught committing some vague offense that they did not even know was against the law. The same standard does not apply to known criminals who commit numerous firearm-related offenses, yet face no prosecution for those charges.

 

The guy who committed a single crime, is a criminal. The other criminal, the one who committed several additional crimes, will be arrested too.

If the DA finds he can leverage reducing the lesser charges to cause that second criminal to accept responsibility without contest of greater charges—we got value from that law. I doubt the first guy wants the same jail term the second guy is being offered.



​

 

Plea bargains to expedite cases due to workload result in felonies becoming misdemeanors in both your examples. That is why we have a revolving door justice system that puts violent people back on the streets all too soon so they can create more victims.They don't need multiple charges to plea bargain.

 

*shrug* Seems like a good argument for doing away with prosecutorial discretion. We would have to contribute more taxes if we do, but depending on the numbers we might end up agreeing on that one. I got no problem with stiffer sentencing requirements for violent crimes.



​

 

But yet BHO and his DOJ says too many Blacks are incarcerated and we get catch and release. Go figure.

 

If you can find a document that requires law enforcement to selectively release criminals based on their skin color, please send it to the media.

I'm not a fan of Obama, but I seriously doubt even he would be dumb enough to produce such a mandate.



​

 

Well if a Police Officer apprehends a criminal that committed a crime, a murder, what difference does the criminals race make as long as the right person is arrested, not based on some blind person, or an identity based on one persons say so, a conviction should be based on objective evidence, DNA, fingerprints, tests, not just because a suspect was seen running away from the scene of the crime.

 

A straw purchase is never a legal purchase. A straw purchase is a gun purchase by a qualified person (no criminal record, etc.) specifically for a person who is not legally allowed to own a gun. Per federal law, this is illegal.

 

If we did this we would seriously have a large percentage of fewer victims of violent crime.
Our liberal politicians want nothing to do with stiffer penalties for violent crime. They already complain about Americas' incarceration rate.
To implement policies that would lead to increased incarceration rates would disproportionately effect minorities.
BLM would go ballistic.

It's much more politically correct to attack our violence problem by going after guns, not criminals.

National Statistics on Recidivism

Bureau of Justice Statistics studies have found high rates of recidivism among released prisoners. One study tracked 404,638 prisoners in 30 states after their release from prison in 2005.The researchers found that:

Within three years of release, about two-thirds (67.8 percent) of released prisoners were rearrested.
Within five years of release, about three-quarters (76.6 percent) of released prisoners were rearrested.
Of those prisoners who were rearrested, more than half (56.7 percent) were arrested by the end of the first year.
Property offenders were the most likely to be rearrested, with 82.1 percent of released property offenders arrested for a new crime compared with 76.9 percent of drug offenders, 73.6 percent of public order offenders and 71.3 percent of violent offenders.

 

Our legal system requires us to demonstrate a person has committed a crime, before imposing penalties on them. As a result, going after criminals—while necessary—means you will always be too late to protect victims. The alternative is penalizing people for what we think they may do in the future.

Reducing the number of guns in society, and other factors in violent crime, is an attempt to reduce crime before it creates victims. It's a different goal and one worth exploring.

Neither goal is without cost and our current approaches to achieve both can be improved.



​

 

And that makes as much sense as saying; There are too many fires, arson, let's restrict the sale of matches, lighters, propane torches.

The key word is Violence, Criminal acts, the fundamentals are Human behavior, Psychology, Pathology, the actual causes of Criminal behavior, these patterns are studied and quantified, Behavioral Sciences, Profiles and patterns are used to determine forensic aspects of criminal acts that serve to identify characteristics of criminal acts as it relates to specific criminals and preferred methods that may serve to identify criminals by their preferences.

Reducing or restricting firearms serves no useful purpose as a method of crime control or crime prevention, current crime rates in jurisdictions ranging from the UBC / 4473 form, ie. Vermont, to Washington D.C. will show how crime rates increase in jurisdictions with full restrictions on firearms.

 

We regulate the sale of propane. In many regions, fires too.



​

 

Not true.
It makes it more difficult for the law abiding to obtain firearms, and thus, more necessary for the law abiding to depend on the state for protection. The state cannot have a monopoly on force until the populace is disarmed.

 

Wow, you miss the point entirely. If the criminal has been segregated from society, he can't continue to create more victims. You do understand the term Recidivism correct? Bureau of Justice reports that a whopping 71% of those arrested for violent crime are repeat offenders.
People with violent convictions on their rap sheets are continually released into society to create more victims.

Tell me.... how do you reduce the nearly half a billion firearms in America? You got a magic wand? Are you suggesting a ban on guns? Are you saying we should repeal the 2A? All you have to do to repeal the 2A is to get 2/3 of both houses of congress and 3/4 of all the state legislatures to agree with you. Not likely since these politicians want to keep their job.

It seems to me it would be easier just to keep violent felons behind bars for lengthy sentences. Stop with the plea bargains, stop with the early releases for violent criminals.

 

Where ? I have never had to present ID to purchase or fill or exchange propane.
Besides OFP valves, I often fill my propane tanks and exchange them at the large propane stations as easily as I get gas in my car, if I remember correctly, you have made this false claim before.

 

We had a 1000 gallon propane tank at the house I grew up in.
Every now and again, the truck arrived, filled the tank, collected the payment.
No ID, no nothing.

 

That is so kool ! I love Propane !
It gets cheaper as you buy more, 1000 gallons....

 

Pray tell what point are you attempting to make with your statement? Are you attempting to suggest that firearm-related offenses are somehow lesser offenses that are fit to be disregarded?

 

What he is trying to say, is the Police arrest a low level Drug Dealer for possession of firearms and possession of illegal narcotics with intent to distribute, so they offer a deal, reduced charges, perhaps immunity if he can give information about his supplier and perhaps other dealers.

 

And of course the gun charges associated are dismissed. So it goes in liberal world. They don't enforce the existing laws, yet want more of them. Go figure.

 

Yes, Liberals are divorced from reality.

They keep babbling how nobody needs a small concealable handgun, yet I proved today, how I needed My Glock 17, to put down a rabid dog, so tell me, nobody needs a small concealable handgun !!!

 

First it was a "high capacity" weapons. Then it was semi-auto's. Next it's "small" weapons. The key word for the banners is weapons. There literally will be no end to it.

 

If it is a Gun, Gun Bannerhoids want to Ban it !