Are we making a rational argument?

[FNFAN]

you are applying a layer of morality to the gun and its possession.

No you're adding another layer of protection to society by punishing the use of a firearm in a crime.

If you can't demonize horrible things like rape and murder to the point people don't do it, do you think demonizing one particular method over another is going to work?

Applying your logic we should do away with enhancements for crimes against the elderly, crimes against the young, crimes by fiduciaries, crimes by gang members. All of those enhancements are indicative of situations where societies interests dictate added penalties. That's what I'm after with firearms in crime.

And even if it does work, is it some sort of victory to say some number of people were murdered this year, but thankfully not with guns?

Why, yes, now that you ask. It is. If we lower the rate of firearms use in crimes there is less (pardon) "ammo" for further restrictions.

Is murder more "murdery" if it is with a gun instead of other means? Is it more heinous or cruel?

Indeed it is. Where is the greater hazard:

#1.We're in a busy park and I try to light you up with my wannabe G18 with a 80 round drum vs. walking up and pinching your head off like a zit.

#2.We're in the theater and you're incessantly talking on your phone. I'm a wackjob and decide "That's it! No soup for you!" Is it more dangerous for me to drop a frag in your lap and run vs. quietly looping my belt around your neck; brace my legs against the back of your seat as you flop around like a fresh caught bonefish?

Which of these instances present the greater hazard to society? Which deserves greater punishment?

I still don't get why using a gun to hurt someone is some sort of +5 evil multiplier on an already criminal act.

Greater hazard to society = more punishment and a longer "time out" to reflect on the error of your ways and commit yourself to only thinking pure thoughts. I don't have anything more for you on this subject. Enjoy!

[David S.]

Twenty-six dead is a twenty-six dead. . . whether accomplished by firearms, explosives, knife, automobile, airplane, blunt object, or anything else.

A weapon-designed-to-kill will make it easier to rack up the body count than your bare hands. That's kinda the point. The CRIMINAL willing and able to kill 26 innocent men, women and children at an elementary school "presents the great hazard to society." The fact that he was "intelligent" enough to use the most effective tools at his disposal seems rather beside the point.

Who represents the greater threat to society? Who deserves more punishment? The bad guy who shoots 26 people to death, or the bad guy who blows 26 people up, or the bad guy who stabs 26 people to death, or the bad guy who pummels 26 people to death with his bare fists?

I fail to find it obvious that the shooter and the bomber are a greater threat to society than the stabber or the puncher. In fact, one may make the opposite case. That is, all things being equal, the stabber or puncher (because of the in-physical-contact nature of the engagement) requires a more committed criminal than the shooter or bomber (who engages from a distance). Again, 26 dead is 26 dead. The fact that the stabber or puncher may be less likely to be effective is, IMO, again beside the point.

With Respect,
David S.

Indeed it is. Where is the greater hazard:

#1.We're in a busy park and I try to light you up with my wannabe G18 with a 80 round drum vs. walking up and pinching your head off like a zit.

#2.We're in the theater and you're incessantly talking on your phone. I'm a wackjob and decide "That's it! No soup for you!" Is it more dangerous for me to drop a frag in your lap and run vs. quietly looping my belt around your neck; brace my legs against the back of your seat as you flop around like a fresh caught bonefish?

Which of these instances present the greater hazard to society? Which deserves greater punishment?

Greater hazard to society = more punishment and a longer "time out" to reflect on the error of your ways and commit yourself to only thinking pure thoughts. I don't have anything more for you on this subject. Enjoy!

[David Armstrong]

Assuming I can afford the lawyer.

"If you cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed to represent you at no cost to you." Or I suppose some of these self-proclaimed experts in Constitutional Law around here could come to your defence!

[NETim]

"If you cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed to represent you at no cost to you." Or I suppose some of these self-proclaimed experts in Constitutional Law around here could come to your defence!

I don't recall anyone here claiming to be an expert on Constitutional law.

[David Armstrong]

I don't recall anyone here claiming to be an expert on Constitutional law.

Gee, I seem to recall some here that claim they know more about the Constitution than the Supreme Court.

[RoyGBiv]

"If you cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed to represent you at no cost to you." Or I suppose some of these self-proclaimed experts in Constitutional Law around here could come to your defence!

How often does a public defender argue cases in front of SCOTUS, I wonder?

[NETim]

Gee, I seem to recall some here that claim they know more about the Constitution than the Supreme Court.

When I hear about USSC justices basing their decisions on European law, I have to wonder.

http://www.neusysinc.com/columnarchive/colm0198.html

[TGS]

How often does a public defender argue cases in front of SCOTUS, I wonder?

That'd be like hiring Top Flight Security to transport nuclear weapons.

[rsa-otc]

When I hear about USSC justices basing their decisions on European law, I have to wonder.

http://www.neusysinc.com/columnarchive/colm0198.html

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been quoted to say she's not fond of the American Constitution and would rather it looked like the Australian Constitution. Sent chills up my spine given her sworn duty is to protect ours. Thinking like that leads to ruling based on how we would like the Constitution to look not how it actually is worded and it's meaning.

[Drang]

"A workman should know their tools" Use a firearm in a robbery and you deserve whatever you get, whether at sentencing or in the street getting tipped over by some uniform. Comes under the heading of "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes."



Three strikes and the various habitual criminal statutes have taken lots of bad folks off the streets, interrupting what often appears to be a revolving door. As far as "draconian punishment not fitting the crime committed" I'll go back to the thread title: "Are we making a rational argument?" I suppose one could argue in favor of business as usual and and not increasing the punishment for the criminal use of firearms vs. reserving use of firearms for legal purposes. It's just an odd argument to make if you're trying to argue against further restrictions or attempting to actually reduce the incidence of firearms use in crime.

We're in the midst of a huge demographics shift towards the uninformed. November 6th proved that. If we get chain migration on top this shift, you'll see an end to what we've considered "traditional American values" until things get bad enough that the reset button gets pushed.

I'd suggest you pick a drum and start beating it. My stance is: "Punish firearms use by criminals, don't further restrict honest citizens" if yours is "Gosh, criminals have the right to use firearms too" then God Bless your little heart.

I was trying to make a point about the absurdity of acts that are malum prohibitum carrying heavier penalties than act that are malum in se.

Either I was too subtle, or tying it to an actual case was confusing.