Any chance for a reasonable discussion about guns?

In reply to Kreb (Forum Supporter) :

Murder should never have a release date. Sorry. That's problem #1 IMO. 10 year sentence because a prosecutor plead down to a lesser sentence? No. 

First off, I never said "jail everyone." Thats a berkeleying strawman bullE36 M3 argument and you know it. I DID say keep the violent felons off the street. I still think legalizing recreational drugs and releasing those with minor offenses like possession would alleviate a lot of hte overcrowding we have. But once you commit a violent felony, sorry. You done berkeleyed up a-a-ron. Make the penalties severe enough that people don't want to go in. 

Secondly, these chicken E36 M3 prosecutors that won't prosecute violent felons because they might not win and hurt their re-election bids need to go. You want crime to go away you have to do something about it. Releasing criminals the same day they are arrested is idiotic, especially for violent crimes. IMO, the prosecutors office should be responsible if a violent felon is released and commits another crime when they don't push to retain them. 

Lets start with that and see how that helps. Suicides need not gun control, but mental health reform. 

In reply to bobzilla :

You make some good points, which made me wonder if data exists for this. Looks like it does!

Interestingly, from a report I quickly found, violent offenders are actually least likely to go back to jail within 5 years from being released, however across the board the percent of released folks going back to jail is abysmal!

Prisoners released after serving time for a violent 
offense (65%) were less likely to have been arrested 
for any type of crime within 5 years than prisoners 
released after serving time for a property (78%), a drug 
(70%), or a public order (69%) offense.

https://bjs.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh236/files/media/document/rpr34s125yfup1217.pdf

Also this seems to have a lot of good info.

https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2022.html

Javelin said:

Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:

Reasonable or not, 43 pages of content in such a short time is positively mind-numbing. 

Not as mind-numbing as the number of mass shootings over the same span.

It's not possible to have a conversation about gun violence that keeps switching back to mass shootings. 
 

There were 45,222 deaths from gun related injuries in 2020. That's 869 per week. You just documented 26 fatalities from mass shootings over a 6 week period. What about the other 5,188 fatalities during the same period?
 

Mass shootings are overwhelmingly emotionally powerful. But honestly they represent an extremely small percentage of firearm injuries and fatalities. 
 

I'm not saying we shouldn't care about mass shootings. But they aren't the core problem. They just grab headlines.

I'd rather focus efforts to try to address the largest number of people affected than make a circus out of sensationalist headlines.

It's just not politically sexy to discuss accidents in the home, gang violence, and suicide.

In reply to Javelin :

No it's not.

Accidents have to do with poorly securing existing firearms in homes.  Changes in sales and licensing will have zero impact.  Access is not the issue. Safe storage, improved training, and stiff penalties for owners who fail to secure their weapons would be a solution.

Gang violence has a lot to do with illegal firearms.  These can't be tracked, so changes in registrations, licensing etc will have zero impact.  

Suicide has to do with mental health. A solution to this has little to do with gun access. If people are unwell and willing to do harm to themselves, the solution again has nothing to do with gun gun access.

How would you propose limiting access to the 400 million guns that already exist in the US?

I know how badly you want to make guns the "bad guy".  That's a fundamental disconnect.  

In reply to Javelin :

You keep returning to mass shootings because the emotional impact is useful to your agenda.

But it's not very useful to an honest effort to minimize gun violence and firearm injuries and fatalities. 

We wouldn't even be having this conversation if it wasn't for a few recent mass shootings. They drive the media attention, and the emotionally charged endless debate with no results.

The real problem is that nobody actually gives a berkeley about children who die from their parents careless storage of firearms, or from criminal activity, or about the mental health of our populace.

We care about political power, votes, and driving conversations that make people run to the polls and give away their Constitutionally protected rights.  OMG!  Think of the children!!

SV reX said:

In reply to Javelin :

No it's not.

Accidents have to do with poorly securing existing firearms in homes.  Changes in sales and licensing will have zero impact.  Access is not the issue. Safe storage, improved training, and stiff penalties for owners who fail to secure their weapons would be a solution.

Gang violence has a lot to do with illegal firearms.  These can't be tracked, so changes in registrations, licensing etc will have zero impact.  

Suicide has to do with mental health. A solution to this has little to do with gun access. If people are unwell and willing to do harm to themselves, the solution again has nothing to do with gun gun access.

How would you propose limiting access to the 400 million guns that already exist in the US?

I mostly agree with your points here, and I broke down the overall numbers and proposed some similar plausible solutions to each about 35 pages ago. Only problem? Theres not enough stump language or inflammatory othering in these types of ideas to get people going I guess. No one seems to respond to an idea that doesn't piss someone else off.

My ears perked up a bit when I read your part about accidents though. Your solutions sound very similar to what most car people say is the solution to decreased road deaths - "better training, stiffer penalties for idiots". 

And I only call that out because as a society, we generally do not choose that path - for whatever reason. Instead, the biggest impacts to keeping motorists safer have come from technology (example seatbelts) and new laws (example seatbelts).

In reply to Robbie (Forum Supporter) :

In reply to bobzilla :

You make some good points, which made me wonder if data exists for this. Looks like it does!

Interestingly, from a report I quickly found, violent offenders are actually least likely to go back to jail within 5 years from being released, however across the board the percent of released folks going back to jail is abysmal!

Prisoners released after serving time for a violent 
offense (65%) were less likely to have been arrested 
for any type of crime within 5 years than prisoners 
released after serving time for a property (78%), a drug 
(70%), or a public order (69%) offense.

https://bjs.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh236/files/media/document/rpr34s125yfup1217.pdf

Also this seems to have a lot of good info.

https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2022.html
 

I think this data just reinforces the idea that bad people do bad things. If we are to live together as a society, we need to treat each other as we would like to be treated. Nothing says "I don't want to be part of society" like harming your fellow citizens. Some people just keep telling us over and over again that they don't want to be here through their actions. We should respect their wishes, and leave them in prison where they belong. 65% arrested. While that doesn't necessarily mean convicted, I'll bet that number only accounts for a small portion of the crimes actually committed by those released from prison. I'm all for building as many prisons as we need. Letting prisoners out due to lack of space is bass-ackwards. The criminals are telling us how many prisons we need, we should listen to them. When we have career criminals roaming the streets, we shouldn't blame the criminals. We should blame society for allowing it to happen.

Robbie (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to bobzilla :

You make some good points, which made me wonder if data exists for this. Looks like it does!

Interestingly, from a report I quickly found, violent offenders are actually least likely to go back to jail within 5 years from being released, however across the board the percent of released folks going back to jail is abysmal!

Prisoners released after serving time for a violent 
offense (65%) were less likely to have been arrested 
for any type of crime within 5 years than prisoners 
released after serving time for a property (78%), a drug 
(70%), or a public order (69%) offense.

https://bjs.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh236/files/media/document/rpr34s125yfup1217.pdf

Also this seems to have a lot of good info.

https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2022.html

The study I have seen and I believe THIS IS THE ONE shows an average over all ages of 50% re-arrest. Break that down into the age groups and the under 18 to 25 is over 80%. To compound that, the rearrest rates show that 80% have 10 arrests or more in their history. 10. We've tried 10 times, and they still don't want to play nice? Should have stopped that E36 M3 at 3. 

In reply to SV reX :

I've been saying this for a while.

bobzilla said:

Robbie (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to bobzilla :

You make some good points, which made me wonder if data exists for this. Looks like it does!

Interestingly, from a report I quickly found, violent offenders are actually least likely to go back to jail within 5 years from being released, however across the board the percent of released folks going back to jail is abysmal!

Prisoners released after serving time for a violent 
offense (65%) were less likely to have been arrested 
for any type of crime within 5 years than prisoners 
released after serving time for a property (78%), a drug 
(70%), or a public order (69%) offense.

https://bjs.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh236/files/media/document/rpr34s125yfup1217.pdf

Also this seems to have a lot of good info.

https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2022.html

The study I have seen and I believe THIS IS THE ONE shows an average over all ages of 50% re-arrest. Break that down into the age groups and the under 18 to 25 is over 80%. To compound that, the rearrest rates show that 80% have 10 arrests or more in their history. 10. We've tried 10 times, and they still don't want to play nice? Should have stopped that E36 M3 at 3. 

The thing that jumps out with me on that one is that assault is high, but also some other bullE36 M3 catchall with zero definition "other public order" has the next highest percentage. This is the viscous cycle of the current system that can lead to some unneded bad outcomes.

(also odd that robbery>assault in severity on that list ... and I would like to know how much of that assault is domestic vs other)

The three strikes laws (far more sever sentences for third strike, not sure how many states have those) try to address some of that.

Of note, the LA district attorney (now trying to be recalled) was sued by his OWN prosecutors because he had a policy not to apply strikes! (A judge ruled he had to... your know... it's the law, and your a freakin' DA!)

In reply to aircooled :

Sadly there are hundreds of them across the country. Marion Co Prosecutor Mears is one of those worthless piles of ... .well you get it. REfuses to file the paperwork for a redflag violation which then led to the FedEx shooting and his only response was "evil guns!". 

In reply to bobzilla :

You read an awful lot into a very short statement that I made. There's no one answer to a very complex problem. One of the primary things that I feel we need to do to curb violence and crime in our country  is to reform the penal system. It doesn't take a braniac to figure out that if you take people, put them in a difficult and sometimes hellish environment with the scum of the earth a lot of the time what emerges from this system will be even worse than what went in. 

Does that mean that I'm soft on crime? Far from it. It means that I try and be a realist. I live in the San Francisco bay Area where property theft is generally treated with a slap on the hand, drugs are ignored and the murder rate is totally unacceptable. We need to do what it takes to effectively treat these problems, and that's going to take being tough AND smart, not just going through the same old motions. 

Rehabilitation in the prison system would be great but:

1. It implies an environment to return to after prison that offers opportunity
2. It implies that budgets are there to provide those services in prison (as opposed to for profit prisons)
3. It requires a mental break, as a nation, away from the punishment mentality (to get those budgets)

Probably more, but I have to run to a meeting soon, so I'm just throwing out the first few ideas that came to mind.

In reply to Brett_Murphy (Agent of Chaos) :

We really need two separate prison systems. One for rehabilitation, one for punishment/removal from society those that do not wish to be rehabilitated. Keeping them all together just doesn't work if rehabilitation is to be a serious goal. Maybe first time offenders go to a prison type school- they are educated and rehabilitated while on time-out from society. If it doesn't stick and they continue to commit crimes? Trick me once, shame on you. Trick me twice, shame on me. They go to prison. 
 

The budget part is always a head scratcher for me. Putting people in prison is expensive when you just look at the cost of incarceration. But not keeping people in prison when the belong there is much more expensive when you add up the need for more law enforcement, legal costs, security, insurance, financial loss, lost production, etc.. The overall cost to society is much lower to keep repeat offenders in prison vs. the cost of their crimes. 

Boost_Crazy said:

In reply to Brett_Murphy (Agent of Chaos) :

We really need two separate prison systems. One for rehabilitation, one for punishment/removal from society those that do not wish to be rehabilitated. Keeping them all together just doesn't work if rehabilitation is to be a serious goal. Maybe first time offenders go to a prison type school- they are educated and rehabilitated while on time-out from society. If it doesn't stick and they continue to commit crimes? Trick me once, shame on you. Trick me twice, shame on me. They go to prison. 
 

The budget part is always a head scratcher for me. Putting people in prison is expensive when you just look at the cost of incarceration. But not keeping people in prison when the belong there is much more expensive when you add up the need for more law enforcement, legal costs, security, insurance, financial loss, lost production, etc.. The overall cost to society is much lower to keep repeat offenders in prison vs. the cost of their crimes. 

There will always be a percentage of society that cannot be helped, will not conform to the rules of society. The flip side is there is always a percentage of those that made a mistake and want to rejoin society as a productive person. Figuring out how to handle both is difficult.

This thread needs more Saiga 12 content.

https://gundigest.com/gun-reviews/shotguns/the-saiga-12-the-bygone-russian-beast

1988RedT2 said:

This thread needs more Saiga 12 content.

How is this post helpful in anyway to this discussion?

Perhaps someone should post a picture of a kid killed in a shooting?   Would that be helpful?  Or would it just be someone trying to get a reaction?

Sorry.  Y'all go right ahead and wallow in your thing.

In reply to aircooled :

It may be in poor taste, but isn't unreasonable. The qualifier was a *reasonable* discussion about guns.

Maybe, but he presented no point or question, just a gun.  So maybe reasonable, but no discussion. Looked a lot like trolling to me.

He may have meant it in humor, but no emoji, and some would clearly not get that intent. Not a great idea on such a sensitive subject.

In reply to aircooled :

No more trolling than half of Javelin's posts. 

bobzilla said:

In reply to aircooled :

No more trolling than half of Javelin's posts. 

Perhaps. I look at it and wonder if a registered AK trigger group would fit in the receiver.  That would be hilariously fun for a few mags.  Especially if that drum actually works reliably (AK drums are apparently known for not being so great in actual use).

But stuff like this is also what makes these discussions interesting for me.  I am generally for better gun regulation, while at the same time I am not for "banning" anything.  If I won the lottery, my gun safe would be full of all sorts of Transferable items.