Inauguration performer's killers (one on probation for unlawful use of firearm, sentenced 12 days prior)

Attempting to purchase a gun by a prohibited person, is a federal felony. Yet there are no more than a handful of prosecutions a year brought for that felony, despite thousands of perpetrators signing an admission of guilt, multiple times.

"Disproportionate" compared to what?

If you let out and stop sending non-violent drug offenders to prison, there would be more time and money to prosecute the ones who are violent offenders.

So hiring a bunch of federal prosecutors and going after these people is going to reduce firearms murders?

Moreover, it's interesting that the NRA has fought against empowering federal enforcement agencies like the ATF.

It almost seems like the whole "enforce the laws on the books" talking point is a red herring to distract us from the real issue.

The U.S. has a disproportionate number of firearms murders compared to other first world countries. I'm sure you know this already, though.

Some selected countries, that had different numbers regardless of gun availability or laws?

So hiring a bunch of federal prosecutors and going after these people is going to reduce firearms murders? Again, it's almost always state law that local authorities use to go after gun crimes. Moreover, it's interesting that the NRA has fought against empowering federal enforcement agencies like the ATF. It almost seems like the whole "enforce the laws on the books" talking point is a red herring to distract us from the real issue.


The U.S. has a disproportionate number of firearms murders compared to other first world countries. I'm sure you know this already, though.

Plea bargains are a pretty crucial part of the criminal justice system. 90-95% of criminal convictions are from plea bargains. If you think all of these cases should go to trial, it would likely cost local and federal government trillions of dollars, not to mention the cost of building more prisons.

If they weren't guilty, they wouldn't have been arrested in the first place, and there has to be a trial before they can be pronounced guilty and sentenced....

So mandatory minimums only work for drugs I guess. We can let the gun-toting felon out on probation as long as he didn't have a bag of weed on him....

Not that it's really the issue, but mandatory minimums do not work for drugs. Judges have pushed back in this area and sentencing guidelines have seen a lot of reform over the past decade. The vast majority of drug cases are resolved as plea bargains anyway.

Often they are one and the same.

More than two-thirds of local jail inmates (68%) were found to be dependent on drugs or alcohol or abusing them, according to a 2002 survey of men and women held in local jails.

The rate of substance dependence or abuse varied by gender, race, and offense:

44% of men and 52% of women were dependent on drugs or alcohol.
78% of white, 64% of black, and 59% of Hispanic inmates were dependent on drugs or alcohol or abusing them.
Inmates convicted of burglary had the highest rate of substance dependence or abuse (85%), followed by inmates convicted of DWI/DUI (82%), weapons violations (79%), and drug possession (75%).
The lowest rate of substance dependence or abuse was among inmates convicted of sexual assault (50%).

something I've mentioned before.. is that jails should be much harder than they are. If jails were that horrible of a place people would obviously attempt to avoid being placed there.

For example one can stick their finger in a lightsocket and get a small shock (not pleasant, but certainly not that bad, people will even do it on a dare). Compare that to say.. holding your hand on hot burner, or putting a knife through your hand. Things you certainly wouldn't do on a dare.. The more negative the effect the less prone you are to allow it to occur.