The 2nd Amendment Thread

[MTK]

Are there people walking free that committed mass shootings? What are we not enforcing exactly?

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by MTK

Are there people walking free that committed mass shootings? What are we not enforcing exactly?

https://www.chicagotribune.com/gun-o...udy-story.html

A study by the U.S. Sentencing Commission released in June 2019 reported more than two-thirds of federal gun offenders were re-arrested within eight years of being released from prison, compared to less than half of non-firearms offenders. (John Gibbins)

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

https://www.chicagotribune.com/gun-o...udy-story.html

Preach!

[MTK]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

https://www.chicagotribune.com/gun-o...udy-story.html

From the article:

Gun offenders should be more closely supervised after release from custody, Jenkins said, including more frequent contact and searches to detect and deter access to firearms.

"Also closely associated with recidivism reduction is requiring the released offenders to participate in and complete Cognitive Behavioral Programs that help high-risk offenders change criminal thinking patterns, make better decisions, and more successfully re-engage in society," said Jenkins.

He said services such as employment training and substance abuse treatment are also critical.

"But changing criminal thinking should be the priority," he said.

So I'm not sure that stricter sentencing is the answer like chico says, but instead expanding parole and re-training programs would probably be a good move.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by MTK

From the article:







So I'm not sure that stricter sentencing is the answer like chico says, but instead expanding parole and re-training programs would probably be a good move.

I agree in that in all cases we are back to access to mental health professionals and better support for people coming out of poverty. In every case, restricting firearms and/or abridging rights to own a gun falls in a poor 3rd place in effectiveness to addressing the mental and economic health of people who are likely to resort to gun violence.



Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by MTK

From the article:



So I'm not sure that stricter sentencing is the answer like chico says, but instead expanding parole and re-training programs would probably be a good move.

If you aren’t demanding justice for the victims of violent crimes and don’t understand the trauma of victim/witness...you simply have zero clue what these communities go thru. You allow the cycle to continue..quick fact check removing people who commit gun crime from the street or neighborhood works, not just a little, it works a lot.

You also are somehow working under a construct that all of these people can be save under the right rehabilitation. It’s a fantasy world...I’ve worked in that world. I once believed what you do.

In some parts of the country over 80 percent of gun crime is with illegally possessed guns. You created deterrence and safer streets by eliminating the person possessing the illegal gun with clearly stating it will not be tolerated anymore with mandatory sentencing.

You want to get community activism going, hold them accountable for the rehab of each person put behind bars for an illegal gun. Let them do the education, rehabilitation and job training. I’m so sick of the whining and them providing zero results. It’s beyond pathetic.

If you want to reference mass shooting, I always have this linked saved:
https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/r.../mass-shooting

Take a look where and who are committing these crimes. It’s not lawful gun owners

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by MTK

From the article:







So I'm not sure that stricter sentencing is the answer like chico says, but instead expanding parole and re-training programs would probably be a good move.

Pretty ironic that many of the same people that think stricter gun control is needed to prevent mass shootings will argue against stricter gun control for people who have already used guns violently.

I believe my position (not the NRA's) is the least hypocritical- punish those who use guns to commit violence, intervene with mental and economic assistance to reduce impetus' toward violence, and let citizens who want to own guns do so safely and openly.





Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[mooby]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Pretty ironic that many of the same people that think stricter gun control is needed to prevent mass shootings will argue against stricter gun control for people who have already used guns violently.

I believe my position (not the NRA's) is the least hypocritical- punish those who use guns to commit violence, intervene with mental and economic assistance to reduce impetus' toward violence, and let citizens who want to own guns do so safely and openly.





Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

I don't disagree with any of this.

I also feel like the gun problem can also be tied to the recidivism problem. Jail works as a punishment for a crime, but it does nothing in teaching a criminal how to break the cycle of returning to the life of crime after the sentence is over.

The mass shooting thing - I think stronger background checks (means taking a little longer for your average law-abiding citizen) in conjunction with closing the loopholes would help in that regard. How many times do we see that article after a mass shooting talking about how many red flags the offender had but none of it came up when they legally purchased the gun used to commit the crime?

Also think if you have been convicted of a violent crime that should clearly be noted when you go to purchase a gun. If you have DV convictions, or assault/battery/etc. convictions those are red flags that should come up (but every application should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis). Harsher penalties for straw purchases or people who don't report their registered gun being stolen too.