Gun Control Idea I just heard...

This one actually sounds reasonable considering where we are at today and what we currently have.

From my understanding, if you committed some crimes as a juvenile, your record is expunged once you turn 18 and you have a clean slate. If I recall correctly, a lot of these killers have had previous problems but were allowed to purchase a firearm due to their clean record when they turned 18. Moving forward they will no longer give you a clean slate when you are 18 and now these previous juvenile offenses will still be on your record for NCIS to see and deny you a firearm purchase.

Call me responsible, but I never understood the clean slate at 18 anyway.

IF all the states would agree to drop their own background check systems and we as a country relied on one background check system, I could go along with the removal of the clean slate. I would also require the BGC system to be able to be accessed at any government office for free so that private sales can be conducted easily and safely.

Who gets to define "some crimes" and is there ever a way to get your rights back via due process?

I ask this at a time where some people are calling to make not accepting "Anthropogenic Climate Change" as fact to be criminals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gman

Who gets to define "some crimes" and is there ever a way to get your rights back via due process?

I ask this at a time where some people are calling to make not accepting "Anthropogenic Climate Change" as fact to be criminals.

---

Good questions... who decides now and what are the current crimes that prevent you from purchasing a firearm? I assume felonies and assault/violent crimes do you in.

Just to be clear, my stance is that if you are free you should be able to purchase a gun or a tank, whatever you want. Personally, I don't see it as being very smart to tell someone you can't buy a Glock, and then send them on their way. If they want to do something bad they can go rent a van full of fertilizer and drive it through Time's square or steal the gun of their choice.

This doesn't seem much different from anything else suggested. Minor in possession = no guns for life? What's the threshold? Crimes against another person?

Same as it is now, and I don't think minor offenses like that prevent gun ownership. I could be wrong, if so, that is not the answer either.

That misdemeanor trespass ticket I got at 16 is going to haunt me forever. :(

Exactly. Kids can do stupid things. Do we really want to prevent people from getting past that?

I wont comment on the solution / problem of this situation, but something to consider when it comes to BGC and priors:

BGC only consider the disposition of crimes. Being that 94-96% of cases are pled down - often to lesser charges, the disposition rarely reflects the actual crime committed. This is one reason why repeat sex offenders/rapists can easily reoffend - rapist takes a plea bargain in County A, it gets pled down to misdemeanor assault. He goes to county B, rapes someone, DA checks his background, he's got a prior for misdemeanor assault. Ok, so it's his first sex offense. DA offers a plea bargain offering to reduce it to misdemeanor assault. (this example ignores the sex offender registry). He pays fine, serves two weeks, moved on to county C. (county-to-county records are often independent of one another as well)

Rarely do officers/DA actually dig deep into arrest history or original charges. And firearm BCG only look at the disposition of things. So, it creates a highly unfair system as far as background checks are concerned - some counties might dispose the original charge (you punched someone, they disposed it felony assault and you served 30 days) while other counties might take absolutely-crazy-serious issues - you came to school with a loaded gun and threatened to kill everybody - and they might plea it down and dispose it at misdemeanor harassment; there's no clear record that you shouldn't be a firearms possessor.

The other thing people EVERYWHERE of all types need to remember, is there is no PERFECT solution. People on the right are going to complain about select individual x falling through the cracks and being unnecessarily denied possession. People on the left are going to complain about select individual y falling through the cracks and going on a spree.

Each side is going to put the "cracks" up on pedestals to justify or vilify proposed solution. The diversity of thought in our country prevents there from being any magical Disney solution to the multitude of problems. Whether it's gun rights vs gun control, mass shootings, mental health, etc, select innocent people will ALWAYS suffer the ramifications of each and every decision, or each solution, or even inaction altogether.

The fact that a single innocent life is affected shouldn't weigh on the decision process, e.g. "every life is invaluable", or "what about bob" is not the standard. Rather, a balanced approach that either greatly affects the absolute smallest number of innocents possible; or somewhat affects many more innocents (but especially at a level of mere inconvenience) is a point of contention for proposals - including but not limited to, proposals for inaction, gun control, or gun rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OxArt

I wont comment on the solution / problem of this situation, but something to consider when it comes to BGC and priors:

BGC only consider the disposition of crimes. Being that 94-96% of cases are pled down - often to lesser charges, the disposition rarely reflects the actual crime committed. This is one reason why repeat sex offenders/rapists can easily reoffend - rapist takes a plea bargain in County A, it gets pled down to misdemeanor assault. He goes to county B, rapes someone, DA checks his background, he's got a prior for misdemeanor assault. Ok, so it's his first sex offense. DA offers a plea bargain offering to reduce it to misdemeanor assault. (this example ignores the sex offender registry). He pays fine, serves two weeks, moved on to county C. (county-to-county records are often independent of one another as well)

Rarely do officers/DA actually dig deep into arrest history or original charges. And firearm BCG only look at the disposition of things. So, it creates a highly unfair system as far as background checks are concerned - some counties might dispose the original charge (you punched someone, they disposed it felony assault and you served 30 days) while other counties might take absolutely-crazy-serious issues - you came to school with a loaded gun and threatened to kill everybody - and they might plea it down and dispose it at misdemeanor harassment; there's no clear record that you shouldn't be a firearms possessor.

---

Wow... So you are saying this isn't an easy answer and due to the problem not being able to fit into a tweet, nothing will be done except on the state level where we will get even more wacky and confusing laws where only lawyers and politicians make a bunch of money from but it does not actually prevent anything from occurring. Then a few months later this happens again and well, rinse and repeat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KAPA

Wow... So you are saying this isn't an easy answer and due to the problem not being able to fit into a tweet, nothing will be done except on the state level where we will get even more wacky and confusing laws where only lawyers and politicians make a bunch of money from but it does not actually prevent anything from occurring. Then a few months later this happens again and well, rinse and repeat.

---

No, I'd say there are fundamental flaws in the operation of our judicial system that are but one broken cog in a complicated timepiece that underlays this problem. Anyone that thinks a BCG is going to fix it isn't viewing the macroeconomics of the underlying problem. Anything that says a BCG will never help is also not understanding the "big picture". It's sort of like calling it a mental health issue and saying the fix is to screen mental health without first fixing the underlying mental health system that would enable you to screen it or deny their possession in the first place. Our government operates on a bureaucratic system of piling more laws on top of more laws though - we're missing the necessary forth branch of government (janitorial) which would've made some of things.... possible.

If someone kills someone else while they are in the commission of a crime, the death penalty should apply. Dead people are never repeat offenders. My primary concern with the death penalty is the way it is applied. Today it is more cost effective to warehouse violent criminals for the rest of their life compared to the "make lawyers wealthy" system of appeals we currently have.

I certainly wouldn't object to more citizens, either public safety employees or non-public safety employees, putting armed criminals down while they are committing their crimes. This would certainly resolve the lengthy and expensive judicial process that seems to be less than effective at providing justice to our society.

No person should have their rights infringed because criminals use certain tools to commit their crimes.

My $.02, and worth what you paid for it. Be safe.

I don't think juvenile records are automatically expunged in Colorado at 18. As far as I recall the person must petition the court to have that done and there is a long list of criteria that would prohibit it from happening. Also, certain LE agencies can access sealed juvenile records under certain circumstances with a court's permission.

So, I think the basic premise in the OP is factually incorrect. Not to mention we already have enough "reasonable" gun control laws.

If a record is not sealed/expunged then the person filling out the form 4473 would have to answer "Yes" to Question 11b and would thus be disqualified from purchasing a firearm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bailey Guns

I don't think juvenile records are automatically expunged in Colorado at 18. As far as I recall the person must petition the court to have that done and there is a long list of criteria that would prohibit it from happening. Also, certain LE agencies can access sealed juvenile records under certain circumstances with a court's permission.

So, I think the basic premise in the OP is factually incorrect. Not to mention we already have enough "reasonable" gun control laws.

If a record is not sealed/expunged then the person filling out the form 4473 would have to answer "Yes" to Question 11b and would thus be disqualified from purchasing a firearm.

---

You might be right, I don't know. Really I think one of the main problems with gun laws is that there are so many and they vary from state to state. I never thought it was a good idea to allow states to make their own laws regarding the Bill or Rights. Take care of this at the federal level and outlaw further regulations on the BofR by the states.

The more I think about all this, the more I believe nothing major will come of any of these recent shootings unless another Sandy Hook type thing happens. At most they do something that makes news but does not actually prevent anything so both sides can say they won this month.

As you stated, there are so many gun laws, and obviously up until now (and for the foreseeable future) nothing done in any legislature has prevented anything. To assume that there is some magic formulas for dealing with human beings who behave badly would be foolish in my opinion. There will always be people who society cannot discourage from criminal behavior and thus the choices become warehouses or cemeteries.

Even with the Ohio shooter being killed in less than a minute after opening fire, it will not discourage all future criminals. Some people just need to be put down...one way or the other.

Be safe.

Its extremely difficult for me to make my point without being over the top snarky but here it is:

Why not make (another) law prohibiting homicide?

Oh wait...

If a person is not safe to be around weapons, fire, cars, kittens and babies, they should be locked away.

Pretty simple really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChickNorris

Its extremely difficult for me to make my point without being over the top snarky but here it is:

Why not make (another) law prohibiting homicide?

Oh wait...

---

Can't make it any simpler. I don't even care for 'hate crime' status associated to homicide. Trying to infer what's in someone's mind isn't where the legal system belongs. The facts show that you killed someone, you die. Next!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thedave1164

If a person is not safe to be around weapons, fire, cars, kittens and babies, they should be locked away.

Pretty simple really.

---

Thank the US Supreme Court. It apparently violates the rights of the mentally insane (even with homicidal tenancies) to prevent them from killing people, until such time, of course, as they've already killed a bunch of people. [shithitsfan]

It would be interesting to see a historical graphic of mass shootings contrasted against that landmark ruling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KAPA

... I never understood the clean slate at 18 anyway..

---

Then lets do away with juvenile law completely. If you commit a crime when you're 11 you go to the same jail as a 40 year old.

For that matter if a child is in a stolen car with their parent (who stole it) they get charged as an accessory.

I mean if we're going to pretend that there's no difference between children and adults lets go ahead and lower the voting age to birth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zundfolge

Then lets do away with juvenile law completely. If you commit a crime when you're 11 you go to the same jail as a 40 year old.

For that matter if a child is in a stolen car with their parent (who stole it) they get charged as an accessory.

I mean if we're going to pretend that there's no difference between children and adults lets go ahead and lower the voting age to birth.

---

On the other hand, if we didn't have this arbitrary "get out of jail free" card at exactly 18YO (or is it 21, IDK), which is a system that actually benefits kids more the closer to adulthood they are (inverse to what you would desire); they wouldn't be having to try juveniles as adults all the freaking time.

Maybe a system that, I don't know, utilizes common sense to craft appropriate punishments on a case-by-case basis with transfers from juvenile to adult detention when age appropriate would, I don't know, actually make sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OxArt

On the other hand, if we didn't have this arbitrary "get out of jail free" card at exactly 18YO (or is it 21, IDK)...

---

Yet on the other other hand, most of the time when older children commit heinous crimes they are tried and punished as adults, so the problem is really moot.


The ultimate truth is that trying to tweak the law to stop mass shootings is a fools errand. All you can do is trample the rights of the majority while trying to prevent the actions of a super tiny minority (there are more legitimate transgender people than there are mass shooters) ... and even then you'll fail.

Basing law on black swan events like mass shooters is like outlawing airplanes because they might get knocked out of the sky by meteorites. And when it all comes down to it, the real goal is to use these low probability events to push laws down the peoples' throats that we'd never go for without the stench of "crisis".



Yes, I'm saying that the wisest, most moral and best course of action that government can take in the face of mass shootings is ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY NOTHING.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zundfolge

Yet on the other other hand, most of the time when older children commit heinous crimes they are tried and punished as adults, so the problem is really moot.


The ultimate truth is that trying to tweak the law to stop mass shootings is a fools errand. All you can do is trample the rights of the majority while trying to prevent the actions of a super tiny minority (there are more legitimate transgender people than there are mass shooters) ... and even then you'll fail.

Basing law on black swan events like mass shooters is like outlawing airplanes because they might get knocked out of the sky by meteorites. And when it all comes down to it, the real goal is to use these low probability events to push laws down the peoples' throats that we'd never go for without the stench of "crisis".



Yes, I'm saying that the wisest, most moral and best course of action that government can take in the face of mass shootings is ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY NOTHING.

---

I wasn't referring to mass shootings. I was referring to your inference that the juvie system works well for kids. The implications of your response is what you cautioned about in your first response: by having a magic age to release kids, we try kids as adults and 14 year olds end up in adult prison. I don't think the "magic release" age is defendable...by anyone. Like I said, wouldn't logic following not having a magic get out of jail card (that puts kids in Adult systems) and instead, ahmegosh, taking things on a case by case level and transferring when appropriate?

I was clearly letting the air out of your argument and showing you the system is exactly what you said it isn't. Carry on chaps though. I appreciate discussions and other viewpoints.

Catching up reading and spotted two posts in this thread that solve 99.9999999% of the problems.

(both snipped)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cstone

If someone kills someone else while they are in the commission of a crime, the death penalty should apply. Dead people are never repeat offenders.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thedave1164

If a person is not safe to be around weapons, fire, cars, kittens and babies, they should be locked away.

Pretty simple really.

---

This covers evil and crazy.

Notice the same people who want to take guns have made damn sure that both methods of dealing with this are off the table? They'll spend gazillions buying votes with social programs but not on mental health facilities. They'll talk about social justice but have weakened the actual justice system to the point its consequences are no longer a deterrent.

We've got guys in this state murdering their pregnant women so they don't have to be fathers and don't GAF.

We've got people in many states openly posting and fantasizing about mass murder, genocide, ethnic cleansing, and political terrorism. Free as the wind.

Oh but that AR in my safe is a real problem! [LOL]

The best "gun control" strategy is shut up. The more people talk about gun control, the more guns and ammo are sold. The more attention shooters are given, the more attention whores are created.