One Good Reason for Gun Control; To Convict Felons


#1

Gun control has become a big issue in this campaign, for a variety of reasons. One is the recent shootings. A second is Obama’s probably unconstitutional executive order. Generally I think gun control is useless since someone who is enough of a criminal to shoot someone won’t care about fastidiously obeying gun laws.

There is only one reason I favor background checks and a paper trail for gun purchases; that is to give the police the ability to be the sole witnesses in certain gun incidents. In this story,Fight over Instagram password leads to gunfire in Jersey City, a boyfriend was enraged that his girlfriend wouldn’t yield her Instagram password. The article stated that “(t)he 17-year-old, who the city is not identifying because he is a minor, was arrested at about noon yesterday for making terroristic threats, aggravated assault for knowingly pointing a firearm and three other weapons charges.”

Now there is a very good chance that neither the girlfriend nor her mother will want to testify for the following reasons:

[LIST=1]
[]When the boyfriend is free on bail or after he serves any (likely light) sentence he may be a bit threatening or intimidating;
[
]The boyfriend and girlfriend may “make up”
[]The girlfriend and mother may have other legal problems and may not want to appear in Court; and/or
[
]The girlfriend and mother may have employment or other time constraints and could lose their jobs if they have to appear in Court.
[/LIST]
In these circumstances the officer’s testimony alone should be sufficient to obtain a conviction on the weapons’ charges. The threats and assault charges require the girlfriend’s and mother’s cooperation, which may not be readily forthcoming.

Sort of the way Al Capone ultimately ent to jail on tax charges, weapons charges are useful ways of incarcerating people who ought to be convicted.


#2

There are too many examples of the State picking up a case when witnesses refuse to testify for me to go along with this.


#3

[quote=“2cent, post:2, topic:48056”]
There are too many examples of the State picking up a case when witnesses refuse to testify for me to go along with this.
[/quote]And how do those cases end, unless there’s a tax or gun charge in the mix?


#4

C’mon, JBG; the Holocaust is up there with the Stalin purges as a reason not to have a paper trail for gun ownership. A purge of a disarmed citizenry (because the government knows where the guns are) is a far greater threat than instances of individual crime.


#5

So gun laws would help protect people who have no interest in their own well being?

If this daughter and mother are so uninterested in their own best interest that they would continue the relationship with this scumbag or refuse to help convict him then what are the odds that they will not just find another scumbag to torment them if this particular scumbag is in jail on a gun charge?

I do not want to sacrifice one Right in the hope that idiots can be spared the consequences of their idiocy, I simply do not understand the reasoning that attempts to make stupidity benign; stupidity is supposed to hurt, that is how most people learn not to be stupid.


#6

One side note, if I had to choose between the horrors of Al Capone never having gone to jail and the horrors inflicted upon every American plus the destruction of our children and grandchildrens lives and liberty that are the result of the Income Tax Amendment; I would GLADLY opt for Capone to have lived out his days as a free man.

If the cure is thousands of times more destructive than the disease, I think it is appropriate to say “Leave it alone, no action is needed here”. The pursuit of Utopia is the path to oppression, we just cannot protect everyone from themselves.


#7

I dunno, but you’re not making too much sense when you say the testimony of the cops should be enough for the weapons charges, then go on to say that a paper trail on the weapons would be necessary to cover the threats and assault charges when he:

was arrested at about noon yesterday for making terroristic threats, aggravated assault for knowingly pointing a firearm

(Yes, ^ quoted from the article you linked.)

The “other weapons charges” I imagine include the fact that it was illegal for him, at 17 yrs., to be possessing a handgun in the first place.
Which assures me that this otherwise, nice, young, law-abiding boy would assuredly fill out the necessary paperwork - in quadruple - to purchase a handgun in New Jersey…which is already required by law.

'Nuff said?


#8

[quote=“RET423, post:5, topic:48056”]
So gun laws would help protect people who have no interest in their own well being?

If this daughter and mother are so uninterested in their own best interest that they would continue the relationship with this scumbag or refuse to help convict him then what are the odds that they will not just find another scumbag to torment them if this particular scumbag is in jail on a gun charge?

I do not want to sacrifice one Right in the hope that idiots can be spared the consequences of their idiocy, I simply do not understand the reasoning that attempts to make stupidity benign; stupidity is supposed to hurt, that is how most people learn not to be stupid.
[/quote]You disregard the realities of life in certain neighborhoods. Say the criminal, on a good day, might get 60 days in jail. He’s around 45 days later (after allowance for good behavior) to menace them, and that wouldn’t be hard in these kind of neighborhoods.

[quote=“2cent, post:7, topic:48056”]
I dunno, but you’re not making too much sense when you say the testimony of the cops should be enough for the weapons charges, then go on to say that a paper trail on the weapons would be necessary to cover the threats and assault charges when he:

(Yes, ^ quoted from the article you linked.)

The “other weapons charges” I imagine include the fact that it was illegal for him, at 17 yrs., to be possessing a handgun in the first place.
Which assures me that this otherwise, nice, young, law-abiding boy would assuredly fill out the necessary paperwork - in quadruple - to purchase a handgun in New Jersey…which is already required by law.

'Nuff said?
[/quote]I believe in gun rights, to a point. I don’t think a bodega owner should have to jump through hoops to legally own a gun. But I see no reason that a 17 year old needs to be armed to the teeth. Chances are, if they’re law abiding and own a gun they won’t get into trouble. But what I want is that if he or she does get into trouble, that the arresting officer be able to be the sole witness for conviction, since otherwise some pretty bad people suffer no consequences for their acts. And those are the very people who are unlikely to fill out the paperwork for legal gun ownership.


#9

There are already laws in place to keep that kid from being armed to the teeth, and they didn’t do a bit of good, did they?


#10

Gun rights to a point?? What point? Who and what determines that point? Most states require background checks now. Keep in mind that criminals will not go through the same background checks, nor will they leave a paper trail and will always find a way to obtain guns. Disarming the public is not the answer. You will never convince me that there is a good reason to infringe upon one’s 2nd Amendment Rights. Without our 2nd Amendment rights we will have NO rights.


#11

I am not disregarding the realities of life in these neighborhoods, I am specifically accounting for these realities.

This girl and her mother chose to willfully interact with a scumbag who would pull a firearm on them over the password to an Instagram account, hence my statement that these women are “idiots” who make idiotic decisions about who they will form intimate relationships with.

So how would sparing them the responsibility of testifying against this scumbag change anything about their personal plight? They cannot possibly place themselves in more harms way if their current choices are people who would pull a gun on them over an Instagram password, no deprivation of Rights that only Law Abiding citizens will endure can spare such idiots from the consequences of their own decisions.

These women are supposed to refuse to press charges, then reestablish a relationship with this scumbag, then get abused in multiple ways by this scumbag, then find another similar scumbag when this scumbag moves on to another idiot.

That is how idiots run their lives.

Any attempt to alter that course of events which does NOT focus primarily on the decisions made by these women will improve nothing for them and cause everyone else to lose their Rights a trickle at a time.


#12

[quote=“RET423, post:11, topic:48056”]

So how would sparing them the responsibility of testifying against this scumbag change anything about their personal plight? They cannot possibly place themselves in more harms way if their current choices are people who would pull a gun on them over an Instagram password, no deprivation of Rights that only Law Abiding citizens will endure can spare such idiots from the consequences of their own decisions.

These women are supposed to refuse to press charges, then reestablish a relationship with this scumbag, then get abused in multiple ways by this scumbag, then find another similar scumbag when this scumbag moves on to another idiot.

That is how idiots run their lives.
[/quote]I don’t really care all that much about the “victim” here. The scumbag’s adversary is the State now and I want him locked up. Even if his cohorts change their minds.


#13

…then you prosecute him for the offenses he HAS committed, JBG. NOT for an “offense” that isn’t “offensive” to anyone but the government.


#14
  1. The scumbag’s adversary already is the State.

  2. The “threat” and “assault” charges have been filed w/o the women pressing charges. (Which means they aren’t even going to be asked to be witnesses.)

  3. New Jersey law already requires a mountain of paperwork in order to legally obtain a handgun.

  4. No scumbag is going to fill out the already required paperwork.

  5. The only people this law hurts are ALL law-abiding citizens.

  6. Kindly refrain from attempting to infringe upon the rights of law abiding citizens.

  7. You couldn’t pay me enough to live in New Jersey. (Nor vote for Christi, whose thinking and opinion of the 2nd Amendment is what lead to the aforementioned paperwork - IOW, infringement of the 2nd Amendment.)


#15

There seems to be an unending list of people who believe that criminals will magically become law-abiding by simply writing yet another law…which only results in abridging the rights of the already law-abiding.
And if they don’t watch out, the law-abiding are going to quit being quite so law-abiding.


#16

[quote=“Pappadave, post:13, topic:48056”]
…then you prosecute him for the offenses he HAS committed, JBG. NOT for an “offense” that isn’t “offensive” to anyone but the government.
[/quote]See below. The problem is that the crimes against other people require the “other people” to testify. They may not want to.

My family is close friends with another couple. Our friends’ son went to a party related to the college he recently graduated. Mind you he is white, Jewish and graduated from a prestigious school with good grades. He is afraid to press charges since he knows that the “People” (I won’t name the state but it’s much redder than NJ) won’t be able to protect him. His assailant likely would do 3-6 months and then when he gets out he’ll be one pissed off individual. The victim, who’s about 23, doesn’t want his life further ruined, or worse.

[quote=“2cent, post:14, topic:48056”]

  1. The scumbag’s adversary already is the State.
  2. The “threat” and “assault” charges have been filed w/o the women pressing charges. (Which means they aren’t even going to be asked to be witnesses.)
    [/quote]Wrong. For the trial they’d still need the victim. The People can testify as to the police finding a gun on him. Since the police didn’t hear the conversation concerning the refusal to turn over the Instagram password it will face an evidence gap at trial. Trust me, I’ve tried cases and personally understand the impact of a hole in the evidence.

[quote=“2cent, post:14, topic:48056”]
3. New Jersey law already requires a mountain of paperwork in order to legally obtain a handgun.
4. No scumbag is going to fill out the already required paperwork.
[/quote]Quite true. And I favor gun control to the extent ONLY of requiring some paperwork that the typical scumbag won’t complete. And if someone buys the gun for that scumbag I want that person in a world of hurt. Such as the one who supplied the San Bernardino killers. Before you say “conspiracy” providing that is hard, especially where one of the conspirators in uncooperative or dead.

[quote=“2cent, post:14, topic:48056”]
5. The only people this law hurts are ALL law-abiding citizens.
6. Kindly refrain from attempting to infringe upon the rights of law abiding citizens.
[/quote]I would try to tailor the law to minimize the impact on ordinary, straightforward people.

[quote=“2cent, post:14, topic:48056”]
7. You couldn’t pay me enough to live in New Jersey. (Nor vote for Christi, whose thinking and opinion of the 2nd Amendment is what lead to the aforementioned paperwork - IOW, infringement of the 2nd Amendment.)
[/quote]Neutral on that one. I live near NJ. It has some great aspects and some decidedly dreary ones. I wouldn’t want Christie as President but I think he’s as good a governor as NJ can elect.


#17

And a paper trail on the gun would fix that how?

Quite true. And I favor gun control to the extent ONLY of requiring some paperwork that the typical scumbag won’t complete. And if someone buys the gun for that scumbag I want that person in a world of hurt. Such as the one who supplied the San Bernardino killers. Before you say “conspiracy” providing that is hard, especially where one of the conspirators in uncooperative or dead.
I would try to tailor the law to minimize the impact on ordinary, straightforward people.

No amount of paperwork is going to help stop crime. It will only infringe upon the rights of law-abiding citizens.
It’s not like criminals go up to someone like underage kids do, and ask someone of age to go to the store for them. They get the guns from a criminal who got it from another criminal, who etc., etc., etc.
Furthermore, I’ll be damned if I’m going to be held liable for a crime committed by some fool who bought a gun from me. And I don’t want any other seller to held liable, either.
How are you going to minimize that impact?
Besides which, a gun is as much of an inanimate object as the sweatshirt I lent a girl who hanged herself with it. Would you like to see my receipt?

Neutral on that one. I live near NJ. It has some great aspects and some decidedly dreary ones. I wouldn’t want Christie as President but I think he’s as good a governor as NJ can elect.

NJ isn’t called The Garden State for nothing. There are some gorgeous areas, and some really good people.
Then again, it isn’t called ‘The Armpit of America’ for no reason, either. Their over-burdensome laws and taxes are the same reason I’d never move back to CT.


#18

How do you tailor registration so as not to lead to confiscation for tyrannical reasons?


#19

Can’t be done, FC. If the government (at ANY LEVEL) can maintain a list of who owns what guns and where they are kept and how, then at some time in the future–under color of an “emergency”–that government could EASILY decide to come and get them–and you will NOT be able to rely on your next-door neighbor to help you defend against confiscation!!! The BEST bet is to never allow the government to know who has firearms and what type. Not a PERFECT solution to the danger of government confiscation, but CERTAINLY better than making it EASY for them to track down people with armaments.


#20

Besides which, it’s about as much of their business as whether you wear boxers or briefs.

If I could wave a magic wand, it’d be used to get people to look at guns in the same way they look at a board, an axe, a bucket, or yes, even a pair of underwear.
They are useless objects until you DO something with them. ALL of those objects could be used to murder someone. OR, they could be used to trap or kill your dinner/water. (Except maybe the underwear. Let’s hope they don’t use that to trap food. lol)