I’m OK with that.
Just being in some places with a gun is illegal. We would be making committing a crime with a gun illegal.
I don’t like the idea generally but if I had to choose…
It might be easier to say which crimes would NOT make the list. White collar crime, non-violent misdemeanors, cyber crime, stuff like that.
Committing a crime is already illegal. Can you spell out for me what this proposal is supposed to accomplish?
The US already has the world’s highest incarceration rate, and one of the higher crime rates.
You are giving criminals way too much credit for long-term planning. If they were motivated by what was going to be happening them ten years from now, they wouldn’t be in crime.
Government funds aren’t limitless. If you pour them into prisons, there is less money for police and probation, which are more effective against crime.
Well, Like I said, I don’t particularly like the idea but if it clarifies things, I mean committing a crime while in possession of a gun. It punishes criminals who carry weapons while committing a crime even if they don’t use the gun. I don’t know if it would persuade criminals to go unarmed but criminals with guns are criminals that maintained the option of using a gun in crime.
So just to make sure I understand:
You want to “clarify” that committing crimes while carrying a gun is illegal, expect that anyone committing a crime while carrying a gun (and who likely anticipates life-or-death decisions) would be deterred, you don’t know if it would work, and punishes people whether they use the weaponry or not.
Did that about sum it up?
I’m a little confused. What, specifically, do you expect to be the end accomplishment were this legislation to pass and evade any Constritutional scrutiny? How many lives - just super-ballpark me here - would be saved; how many crimes would be stopped?
I suspect that what the people who support this idea anticipate is that it will reduce the incidence of criminals carrying guns while committing crimes. I suspect they think this will reduce the incidence of criminals using guns while committing crimes where guns are not necessary to the commission of the crime.
What I’m seeing here is analogous to doubling the traffic fine in clearly marked “work areas” on the road. Is that right?
I note only one drawback to that plan … criminals by definition don’t obey laws. I know I’m risking being branded as “simplistic”, and I realize that laws are often written to make enforcement and sentencing easier, but just on the surface … if you want to prevent crime by doubling sentences, why not just double every sentence, regardless of the crime, and ignore guns(in this context)?
If doubling the punishment reduces crime, why aren’t we doubling all punishment?
I also seriously expected this to be about young adults owning guns before I read it and didn’t see them mentioned anywhere, so YA must stand for “Yet Another”.
[QUOTE=Damuri Ajashi]
I suspect that what the people who support this idea anticipate is that it will reduce the incidence of criminals carrying guns while committing crimes.
[/QUOTE]
Again, that doesn’t make a lot of sense. Why do we want to punish gun possession if the gun is not used to commit a crime?
It would be like saying if you are more than thirty pounds overweight, your sentence is doubled, because obesity is a bad thing and we want to discourage it.
What is the advantage of reducing that incidence? If the gun is not part of the crime, how does it help anyone to discourage its carrying?
If I embezzle from a company, and I have a shotgun in the truck, how is the company worse off than if I left the shotgun at home before I started embezzling?
Regards,
Shodan
If judges were universal in their wisdom, dedication and JUDGEment I would tend to agree with you. But I have known too many attorneys to bend over backwards to get one certain judge or cry long hours into their drinks over the misfortune of drawing another to think that true.
This problem has a solution: Electable judges.
Why punish murder with a more severe sentence than pickpocketing if the length of the sentence doesn’t make a difference?
The proponents of this idea might think that having a gun while committing a crime IS relevant and makes a difference. They might think the crime is aggravated by the emre possession of a gun even if it not used in the crime.
Once again I don’t support this idea but the people who do might think that the mere possession of a gun aggravates the crime.
This is going to be my last attempt at trying to defend a rule I don’t support:
If you read upthread I said that this sort of rule wouldn’t make sense for some crimes like white collar crime. Embezzlement is white collar crime.
I think we would all agree that brandishing a gun in a crime can be an aggravating factor in the crime. This rule would take away the actual use and assume that you were prepared to use the gun in the crime if you possess the gun while committing the crime.
So if you rob someone and you bring along a gun but your victim is very compliant or weak and you never have to brandish your gun (or any other weapon), you would probably get charged with strongarm robbery rather than armed robbery. Well, now there is a harsher penalty because you were ready willing (presumably) and able to use a weapon in that crime.
Your response to my post is a non sequitur. Doubling all sentences has absolutely nothing to do with the relative severity of punishment reflecting the relative seriousness of crimes. You can see that, can’t you?
OK, I see what you did .. you’re attacking the “criminals don’t obey laws” portion of my post. I’ll address that. Expanding my point from “bumper-sticker” length, I’ll suggest that criminals don’t generally arm themselves before cheating on their taxes or committing mail fraud. However, I doubt that the gang member protecting his turf from rival gangs or the psychopath who intends to massacre a dozen innocents, and then commit suicide, will be swayed by the threat of a double-long wait for a parole hearing.
Yes, and the point is that there is a reason why criminals arm themselves before confronting rival gang members and don’t arm themselves before committing tax fraud. When they arm themselves when they go out to commit a crime, they are ready willing and able to use the gun and some people want to increase punishment just for that.
Saying that you don’t think it will have a deterrent effect so we shouldn’t do it is like saying, that prison time didn’t have a deterrent effect for the underlying crime so why have THAT punishment. We punish crimes and some people think that increasing the punishment of a crime while in possession of a firearm should be punished mroe severely.
Like I said, I don’t think its a great idea but its not punishing MERE gun ownership or MERE gun possession. It is increasing punishment for certain crimes committed while in possession of a firearm.
The crazy guy who commits mass murder and the commits suicide isn’t going to be deterred by anything. Noone is suggesting that.
Then, as mentioned above, you are essentially abandoning the presumption of innocence for gun owners. Which is going to be tough to get past the Supreme Court.
I realize that you don’t actually advocate this idea, but I am using your post as a way to point out what I can see as difficulties.
Regards,
Shodan
I thought the same thing. 
I’m not assuming away anything. If its a crime to carry a firearm while getting drunk in a bar then why can’t it be a crime to carry a firearm while committing another crime? Remember we are talking about a criminal here, not some law abiding citizen who is getting punished MERELY for lawful possession. What constitutional problem do you see?
I think the problem with this proposal isn’t that you can’t punish people for possessing firearms when they are not allowed to possess firearms, I think there are much better ways to address the problem while being minimally intrusive on the right to bear arms.
Ultimately we don’t want criminals to leave their weapons at home. We want criminals not to have weapons at all.
You might not like the idea of licensing and registration but if I can show you why this will lead to reduced gun ownership among criminals, then would you be willing to spend an afternoon at the DMV getting your national gun license (good in all states for concealed carry) and registering all your firearms (and involving an FFL in all your firearms transfers)? Would it help if we lifted the ban on sales and manufacture of selective fire weapons in states that permitted it?
Because you are punishing him for a crime he didn’t commit. He had the gun, but did not use it and it was not part of the crime. You can’t punish him worse for doing something legal that is unconnected to the crime.
Your assumption is that the criminal would have used the gun he was carrying if that became necessary to commit the crime. Don’t you need to show evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, that this is true? You can’t just assume that he is guilty of intent to use a gun. You have to show that he did intend to do so, and that is an uphill battle, especially since he didn’t use the gun.
You can’t punish people for crimes they might have committed, but didn’t. That’s (IMO) the Constitutional issue.
Suppose the criminal is wearing a belt. He could have used it to strangle someone. Even though he didn’t, don’t we need to double his sentence?
Regards,
Shodan
Let’s agree to disagree … but my gist doesn’t involve deterrence, it involves actual crimes committed. A felon or someone in illegal possession of a gun is already committing a gun crime by owning and carrying the weapon; no new laws needed.
If the perp is legally carrying, charging him additionally flies in the face of an already tarnished justice system. Charge criminals for crimes to control crime, not for non-crimes to control possession of Constitutionally protected arms, in an effort to work around the 2nd Amendment. If enacted, a law like that could lead to speeders or reckless drivers being charged with a gun crime for having a legal gun in the car.