The New Exchange » Guns and the Two Americas

Jeerleader · 8/06/2015 11:45 pm

Just Fred wrote:
Jeer, I'm only interested in what you think, not what others via court cases have decided and/or ruled.

I did state what I think and noted that SCOTUS said what I think / believe, more eloquently.

My positions on issues of public policy (like gun control) are founded in our foundational principles and Constitution and are grounded in what the actual state of the law is, as interpreted by the Courts. I really can't dissect out the proofs that my positions rely on (for their veracity and feasibility) from my beliefs. I'm not a dreamer who holds beliefs that stand in opposition to actual circumstance. It seems to me to be a complete waste of time to maintain public policy positions that are divorced from reality and have no connection to the Constitution and the law. They are unsupportable and indefensible and stand only as the opinion / musings of a mind that doesn't adhere to any standard of intellectual integrity and is certainly not interested in debate.

So, when I say in response to you* that, "rights are not subject to the will of the majority, especially those fundamental rights specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights. They are (supposedly) removed from the political arena, removed from the prerogative of the legislature and held secure from shifts in majority public opinion", that is a belief that I know conforms with foundational principle and is validated by SCOTUS speaking on the nature of rights under the Constitution (which I quoted to demonstrate my belief has support in the law of the land).

Just Fred wrote:
Isn't our history riddled with decisions that have been changed due to changes in societal and cultural needs and re-examination of laws and regulations?

Well, I'm not sure "riddled" is the proper description but there certainly are some landmark cases. Brown v. Board of Education overturning Plessy v. Ferguson is definitely one to point to.

[i]Griswold v CT[/i] which led to Roe v Wade is another. It is interesting to note that the legal reasoning -- penumbral rights -- that Griswold (and by extension, Roe) relies on to recognize and secure the right to privacy is the unique nature of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights (including the right to keep and bear arms). I won't waste my time explaining the apparently unimportant and/or boring details.

Just Fred wrote:
Alcohol was legally sold , then it wasn't, then it was. Women didn't have the right to vote, then they did. See what I mean?

And the 18th Amendment is an interesting study. Congress knew it had no authority to ban the manufacture, distribution and sale of intoxicating spirits, so it followed the correct process and that power was granted to Congress through a Constitutional Amendment.

Of course banning something people want, created crime syndicates to fill the demand. In the case of banning guns and ammo, the black market created would make Prohibition look like a Girl Scout cookie sale.

* "Could we then agree that the government (which is you and me in a democratic society) has the ability to regulate the type of weaponry that can be manufactured, distributed and sold to the public"

Last edited by Jeerleader (8/07/2015 12:40 am)

Jeerleader · 8/07/2015 12:18 am

Rongone wrote:
Funny you should mention Article 5 which says:

Why is it funny? I note the only process, the actual Article in the Constitution you (apparently) are refering to when saying, "a methodology to adjust these documents, and the rights contained within", and it's funny?

Rongone wrote:
So, the provision inserted into the constitution allowing for the necessary modifications as times change you consider to be "illegitimate and threatens the entire compact".

You quote what I wrote but then you go off and stuff a strawman.

I said, "Just for arguments sake, I would say that the use of the Article V amendment process to rescind a right that is among those in the Bill of Rights, is illegitimate and threatens the entire compact."

The action that I said is illegitimate and could threaten the entire compact, is very, very narrow. It is limited to using the amendment process to rescind a right recognized and secured in the Bill of Rights.

I gave the reasons why. If you want to attack my statement please do so actually using my statement, not some cockamamie invention of your mind. I realize the theory that I am presenting demands higher thinking but I didn't expect it to be completely discombobulated to the point of misrepresentation.

Rongone wrote:
Unfortunately, neither you nor anyone else gets to pick and choose based on their personal point of view which tenets are legitimate and subject to being obeyed.

LOL. In two posts I go from being criticised for constraining my thinking / beliefs strictly to the Constitution and relying on quotes from the Supreme Court for support --- to being accused of substituting my personal point of view for funadamental tenets. Hilarious!

Rongone wrote:
Oh, by the way, I don't need to "unlearn" anything.

I wouldn't expect you to say anything else.

Jeerleader · 8/07/2015 12:23 am

tennyson wrote:
Words but no solutions.

1) Decriminalize recreational drug use, reallocate interdiction / enforcement / prosecution budget lines to wherever needed among the following:
2) Enforce with vigor laws criminalizing the violent misuse of firearms.
3) Don't use any weapons offenses as bargaining chips to be thrown out for guilty pleas for other charges.
4) Never allow the pleading down of felony gun charges to misdemeanors.
5) Mandate full time sentenced to be served for any violent misuse of a firearm.
6) Enhanced sentences for repeat offenders / felon in possession with reduced appeal opportunities.
7) Mandate states maintain the most up-to-date database of prohibited persons possible (including a red flag for mental issues - HIPPA be damned). and this be shared with the federal system and all other states.
8) Increase funding for parole/probation programs for enforcement of conditions of release and tightening of controls on those under conditional release and oversight of the boards responsible for early release.
9) Increase funding for states / cities for FTA/fugitive recovery with a priority on violent offenders.
10) Enact a nationwide concealed weapon permit system for law-abiding citizens that no state or municipality can opt out of.

If these steps were taken criminal firearm homicide would fall 50%+ in 3 years.

Rongone · 8/07/2015 9:43 am

Jeerleader wrote:
Rongone wrote:
Funny you should mention Article 5 which says:
Why is it funny? I note the only process, the actual Article in the Constitution you (apparently) are refering to when saying, "a methodology to adjust these documents, and the rights contained within", and it's funny?

Rongone wrote:
So, the provision inserted into the constitution allowing for the necessary modifications as times change you consider to be "illegitimate and threatens the entire compact".
You quote what I wrote but then you go off and stuff a strawman.

I said, "Just for arguments sake, I would say that the use of the Article V amendment process to rescind a right that is among those in the Bill of Rights, is illegitimate and threatens the entire compact."

The action that I said is illegitimate and could threaten the entire compact, is very, very narrow. It is limited to using the amendment process to rescind a right recognized and secured in the Bill of Rights.

I gave the reasons why. If you want to attack my statement please do so actually using my statement, not some cockamamie invention of your mind. I realize the theory that I am presenting demands higher thinking but I didn't expect it to be completely discombobulated to the point of misrepresentation.

Rongone wrote:
Unfortunately, neither you nor anyone else gets to pick and choose based on their personal point of view which tenets are legitimate and subject to being obeyed.
LOL. In two posts I go from being criticised for constraining my thinking / beliefs strictly to the Constitution and relying on quotes from the Supreme Court for support --- to being accused of substituting my personal point of view for funadamental tenets. Hilarious!

Rongone wrote:
Oh, by the way, I don't need to "unlearn" anything.
I wouldn't expect you to say anything else.

Like trying to nail jello to the ceiling.

tennyson · 8/07/2015 10:12 am

Jeerleader wrote:
tennyson wrote:
Words but no solutions.
1) Decriminalize recreational drug use, reallocate interdiction / enforcement / prosecution budget lines to wherever needed among the following:
2) Enforce with vigor laws criminalizing the violent misuse of firearms.
3) Don't use any weapons offenses as bargaining chips to be thrown out for guilty pleas for other charges.
4) Never allow the pleading down of felony gun charges to misdemeanors.
5) Mandate full time sentenced to be served for any violent misuse of a firearm.
6) Enhanced sentences for repeat offenders / felon in possession with reduced appeal opportunities.
7) Mandate states maintain the most up-to-date database of prohibited persons possible (including a red flag for mental issues - HIPPA be damned). and this be shared with the federal system and all other states.
8) Increase funding for parole/probation programs for enforcement of conditions of release and tightening of controls on those under conditional release and oversight of the boards responsible for early release.
9) Increase funding for states / cities for FTA/fugitive recovery with a priority on violent offenders.
10) Enact a nationwide concealed weapon permit system for law-abiding citizens that no state or municipality can opt out of.

If these steps were taken criminal firearm homicide would fall 50%+ in 3 years.

I agree with almost all of these but question that the numbers would fall by that much.

Personally I believe a LOT more needs to be added to the list concerning gun manufacturers and the type of weapons that are being intruduced as well as required safety mechanisms, but I imagine you would not agree to that at all.

Goose · 8/07/2015 12:03 pm

I think that 50% figure came from the Journal of Numbers I Just Picked Out of the Air.

Jeerleader · 8/09/2015 1:49 am

Rongone wrote:
Like trying to nail jello to the ceiling.

I can appriciate your frustration but you really need to up your game from making your primary point either a misreading (at best) or a outright misrepresentation (at worst) of what I wrote.

Jeerleader · 8/09/2015 4:04 am

tennyson wrote:
[I agree with almost all of these but question that the numbers would fall by that much.

It is an estimate based on what I know about 1), the deficiencies in the NICS background check system, 2), the deficiencies in the criminal justice system and 3), the DOJ/BJS statistics for murder.

Let’s look at each:

The background check database (9.3KB pdf) is a joke. Only a small percentage of prohibited persons are included and the categories that have the poorest data are IMO, the most dangerous people (primarily drug related and domestic violence convictions, mental history and persons under abuse RO/PFA).

If we mandated states maintain the most up-to-date database of prohibited persons possible (including a red flag for mental issues - HIPPA be damned) and this be shared with the federal system and all other states and we could eliminate prohibited persons from legally buying a gun, how much would gun murder fall? I say 5%.

The criminal justice system is a joke, especially in the treatment of illegal gun possession. Big cities (where violent gun crime is the biggest problem – over 50% of murder occurs in the 75 largest counties) often charge gun possession crimes as misdemeanors or worse, include it in accelerated disposition programs. Upon a short probationary period the offender’s history is expunged and repeat offenders are not punished (and never adjudicated as a prohibited person).

St Louis Police Chief Dan Isom explained the situation and states his frustration:

"One thing we have to be aware of to give context to this whole problem is that we are looking at an urban problem. It’s much less a suburban or rural problem. It really affects young minorities. . . When you look at the shooting victims and suspects in these neighborhoods, you see 20 or 30 felony arrests, with eight convictions. . . .

In Missouri, there’s a type of probation people can receive, and it has made it very difficult for us to establish a person as a convicted felon. I’ve heard other chiefs talking about the fact that a weapons charge in their state is only a misdemeanor offense. But in St. Louis, a weapons violation can turn out to be no offense at all. An individual will get arrested for a weapons charge, which is a felony, and often they plead to that case and get an SIS—a suspended imposition of sentence. It means that if you serve out your probation, which everybody does, that conviction is erased.

So if you’re arrested again with another weapon, you don’t have a conviction on your record, so you’re not a felon in possession of a weapon. If you continue to get multiple SISs, you never become a convicted felon. These offenders will often show up for other crimes, and if they never have a conviction, then you’re never able to put stiffer charges on them."

And as I said, they never become a prohibited person as far as gun rights disability goes so these repeat armed criminals can buy guns legally for themselves and others because they pass the NICS background check . . .

If we didn’t allow armed criminals a get-out-of-jail-free card and we instead enforced with vigor laws criminalizing the misuse of firearms and didn't use weapons offenses as bargaining chips to be thrown out for guilty pleas for other charges and we didn’t allow the pleading down of felony gun charges to misdemeanors and we mandated full time sentenced to be served for any violent misuse of a firearm . . . How much would gun murder fall? I say about 20%.

Another focus for me within criminal justice is on repeat offenders. Way too many murders are committed by people we know are violent criminals but they are released into society. The worst are those out on some manner of “supervised” release. 36% of murderers have an active criminal justice status at the time of their arrest; 15% percent were on probation, 13% were on pretrial release, and 8% were on parole. Additionally, 67% of murderers had prior criminal convictions when arrested; 10% had one conviction, 20% had 2-4 convictions, 16% had 5-9 convictions and 21% had 10 or more prior convictions. In some cities the percentage tops 70 and even 90% for offenders and victims both. In many cases, murder victims and offenders are “in the game” and killing and being killed is part of it.

If we kept those who have proven themselves to be menaces to society, OUT OF SOCIETY, with enhanced sentences for repeat offenders / felon in possession and we increased funding for parole/probation programs for enforcement of conditions of release and tightening of controls on those under conditional release and oversight of the boards responsible for early release and we increased funding for states / cities for FTA/fugitive recovery with a priority on violent offenders, how much would gun murder fall? I say 20%.

I want to see a nationwide concealed weapons permit that no state or municipality can opt out of. If government is going to do such a piss-poor job in controlling criminals their ability to control law-abiding citizen’s self-defense options, should be restrained if not extinguished. If such a program were initiated criminal gun homicide may not fall by multiple percentage points but it will have an impact in the low single digits (2-4%) but the real benefit will be more criminals will meet their just end.

So, coming back to your questioning of my estimate of gun homicide reduction, by my accounting, 5% + 20% + 20% + 4% = 49% reduction in gun homicide. If anyone wishes to challenge anything I’ve said here go right ahead, I'll cite the DOJ/BJS for any stat you want.

Additionally, regarding crime stats and gun homicide stats in particular, a fact that nobody wants to acknowledge let alone address (and this goes to the heart of my complete disdain for the OP’s article's premise, utterly blind to the real “two Americas”), is that 1% of the population (Black males 14-24 y.o.) are responsible for over 25% of murders. While I didn’t include any social remedies if we could somehow reduce the criminality of young Black men, a reduction in all crime, including gun homicide will be realized.

tennyson wrote:
Personally I believe a LOT more needs to be added to the list concerning gun manufacturers and the type of weapons that are being intruduced as well as required safety mechanisms, but I imagine you would not agree to that at all.

As I said, until government can control those who it catches breaking laws, I really don’t want to hear anything about giving government more power to control the activity of those who don’t break the law . . . Especially extending powers that government has zero authority to exercise.

Last edited by Jeerleader (8/09/2015 4:16 am)

Goose · 8/09/2015 6:45 am

Jeerleader wrote:
Rongone wrote:
Like trying to nail jello to the ceiling.
I can appriciate your frustration but you really need to up your game from making your primary point either a misreading (at best) or a outright misrepresentation (at worst) of what I wrote.

For someone who puts the bar so high for other posters, Jeer, I was shocked that you would just pull numbers out of the air about what would happen to crime if your ideas were implemented. That's worthless.

You should focus less on condescension and more on upping your game.
Practice what you preach.

tennyson · 8/09/2015 6:57 am

Jeerleader wrote:
tennyson wrote:
[I agree with almost all of these but question that the numbers would fall by that much.
It is an estimate based on what I know about 1), the deficiencies in the NICS background check system, 2), the deficiencies in the criminal justice system and 3), the DOJ/BJS statistics for murder.

Let’s look at each:

The background check database (9.3KB pdf) is a joke. Only a small percentage of prohibited persons are included and the categories that have the poorest data are IMO, the most dangerous people (primarily drug related and domestic violence convictions, mental history and persons under abuse RO/PFA).

If we mandated states maintain the most up-to-date database of prohibited persons possible (including a red flag for mental issues - HIPPA be damned) and this be shared with the federal system and all other states and we could eliminate prohibited persons from legally buying a gun, how much would gun murder fall? I say 5%.

The criminal justice system is a joke, especially in the treatment of illegal gun possession. Big cities (where violent gun crime is the biggest problem – over 50% of murder occurs in the 75 largest counties) often charge gun possession crimes as misdemeanors or worse, include it in accelerated disposition programs. Upon a short probationary period the offender’s history is expunged and repeat offenders are not punished (and never adjudicated as a prohibited person).

St Louis Police Chief Dan Isom explained the situation and states his frustration:

"One thing we have to be aware of to give context to this whole problem is that we are looking at an urban problem. It’s much less a suburban or rural problem. It really affects young minorities. . . When you look at the shooting victims and suspects in these neighborhoods, you see 20 or 30 felony arrests, with eight convictions. . . .

In Missouri, there’s a type of probation people can receive, and it has made it very difficult for us to establish a person as a convicted felon. I’ve heard other chiefs talking about the fact that a weapons charge in their state is only a misdemeanor offense. But in St. Louis, a weapons violation can turn out to be no offense at all. An individual will get arrested for a weapons charge, which is a felony, and often they plead to that case and get an SIS—a suspended imposition of sentence. It means that if you serve out your probation, which everybody does, that conviction is erased.

So if you’re arrested again with another weapon, you don’t have a conviction on your record, so you’re not a felon in possession of a weapon. If you continue to get multiple SISs, you never become a convicted felon. These offenders will often show up for other crimes, and if they never have a conviction, then you’re never able to put stiffer charges on them."

And as I said, they never become a prohibited person as far as gun rights disability goes so these repeat armed criminals can buy guns legally for themselves and others because they pass the NICS background check . . .

If we didn’t allow armed criminals a get-out-of-jail-free card and we instead enforced with vigor laws criminalizing the misuse of firearms and didn't use weapons offenses as bargaining chips to be thrown out for guilty pleas for other charges and we didn’t allow the pleading down of felony gun charges to misdemeanors and we mandated full time sentenced to be served for any violent misuse of a firearm . . . How much would gun murder fall? I say about 20%.

Another focus for me within criminal justice is on repeat offenders. Way too many murders are committed by people we know are violent criminals but they are released into society. The worst are those out on some manner of “supervised” release. 36% of murderers have an active criminal justice status at the time of their arrest; 15% percent were on probation, 13% were on pretrial release, and 8% were on parole. Additionally, 67% of murderers had prior criminal convictions when arrested; 10% had one conviction, 20% had 2-4 convictions, 16% had 5-9 convictions and 21% had 10 or more prior convictions. In some cities the percentage tops 70 and even 90% for offenders and victims both. In many cases, murder victims and offenders are “in the game” and killing and being killed is part of it.

If we kept those who have proven themselves to be menaces to society, OUT OF SOCIETY, with enhanced sentences for repeat offenders / felon in possession and we increased funding for parole/probation programs for enforcement of conditions of release and tightening of controls on those under conditional release and oversight of the boards responsible for early release and we increased funding for states / cities for FTA/fugitive recovery with a priority on violent offenders, how much would gun murder fall? I say 20%.

I want to see a nationwide concealed weapons permit that no state or municipality can opt out of. If government is going to do such a piss-poor job in controlling criminals their ability to control law-abiding citizen’s self-defense options, should be restrained if not extinguished. If such a program were initiated criminal gun homicide may not fall by multiple percentage points but it will have an impact in the low single digits (2-4%) but the real benefit will be more criminals will meet their just end.

So, coming back to your questioning of my estimate of gun homicide reduction, by my accounting, 5% + 20% + 20% + 4% = 49% reduction in gun homicide. If anyone wishes to challenge anything I’ve said here go right ahead, I'll cite the DOJ/BJS for any stat you want.

Additionally, regarding crime stats and gun homicide stats in particular, a fact that nobody wants to acknowledge let alone address (and this goes to the heart of my complete disdain for the OP’s article's premise, utterly blind to the real “two Americas”), is that 1% of the population (Black males 14-24 y.o.) are responsible for over 25% of murders. While I didn’t include any social remedies if we could somehow reduce the criminality of young Black men, a reduction in all crime, including gun homicide will be realized.

tennyson wrote:
Personally I believe a LOT more needs to be added to the list concerning gun manufacturers and the type of weapons that are being intruduced as well as required safety mechanisms, but I imagine you would not agree to that at all.
As I said, until government can control those who it catches breaking laws, I really don’t want to hear anything about giving government more power to control the activity of those who don’t break the law . . . Especially extending powers that government has zero authority to exercise.

Not really a surprising answer from you.

BTW, my statement had NOTHING to do with controlling people, but that of an inanimate object to make it safer for humanity.