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

Quote from nobama : Have you seen plea-bargaining in progress? Very often criminals walk away with a slap on the wrist compared to the crimes they had committed due to "plea-bargaining".

Yes, it is not like a Law & Order episode either. Trials are expensive. Jails are expensive. The justice system is clogged with non-violent offenders -- drug offenses, petty theft, prostitution, etc. If you want tougher sentencing that's one thing, but I wouldn't blame it on plea bargains.

Quote : So the prosecutor makes a deal to let them off the hook if they plead guilty to a much lesser charge with reduced or no jail time instead of their original crimes, then the prosecutor can claim a high "conviction rate" or clearance rate.

Not really.

Quote from roughnready : Yes, it is not like a Law & Order episode either. Trials are expensive. Jails are expensive. The justice system is clogged with non-violent offenders -- drug offenses, petty theft, prostitution, etc

Many of those "non-violent offenders" go through the system with a slap on the hands and become more seasoned criminals due to lenient treatment.

Quote from roughnready : If you want tougher sentencing that's one thing, but I wouldn't blame it on plea bargains.

I don't blame it totally on plea-bargains, but that takes a very large part of the blame. I wish I could agree with you, but I've seen it too many times in action, and to many of the criminals it is a big joke. But unfortunately it's a part of our system.

Quote from roughnready : 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.

Fine, then plea bargain sentences down to 1 year instead of 10 in appropriate cases. Not probation for gun charges.

Funny how after years of "3 strikes" laws and other determinate sentences for serious crimes, we now enjoy the lowest crime and homicide rates in 40-50 years.

Could it be that the threat of actual incarceration might discourage offenders?

Why is it that those who are most in favor of new gun laws, consistently oppose prosecuting existing laws?

Quote : So the prosecutor makes a deal to let them off the hook if they plead guilty to a much lesser charge with reduced or no jail time instead of their original crimes, then the prosecutor can claim a high "conviction rate" or clearance rate.

Quote from roughnready : Not really.

Yes, really.

Conviction rates are exactly what motivates prosecutors in how they handle cases. DA's need them to be re-elected, and federal prosecutors need them to keep their jobs.

Quote from Elmer : Why is it that those who are most in favor of new gun laws, consistently oppose prosecuting existing laws?

Because, in the aggregate, prosecuting existing gun laws has little or nothing to do with preventing the disproportionate number of gun related deaths that occur in our country. Stopping the flood of dangerous firearms that are available -- which would prevent bad people from getting guns in the first place, even the previously law abiding ones, like the Newtown shooter -- more directly addresses the problem.

Quote from roughnready : Because, in the aggregate, prosecuting existing gun laws has little or nothing to do with preventing the disproportionate number of gun related deaths that occur in our country.

Substantiation?

Quote : Stopping the flood of dangerous firearms that are available -- which would prevent bad people from getting guns in the first place, even the previously law abiding ones, like the Newtown shooter -- more directly addresses the problem.

So addressing those that commit crimes doesn't do anything compared to systematically removing firearms from the law abiding. Interesting.

Quote from paperboy05 : Substantiation?

The substantiation is common sense. The NRA likes to throw around the idea that federal firearms prosecutions have dropped, without mentioning that firearms crimes are usually prosecuted at the state level and that violent crime in general has dropped (and that they've also sought to have the ATF weakened).

Consider the problem: the U.S. has a disproportionate number of firearms and firearms deaths per citizen. Most (or all?) of the recent mass killings are inflicted by previously "law abiding" people. How would enforcing the laws already on the books have prevented these people from carrying out their crimes? If they had less efficient weapons and smaller magazines, on the other hand, we know that they could not have killed as fast. In other words, stemming the supply of large magazines and assault weapons is a sure thing. Some vague notion of enforcing existing laws is not.

Quote : So addressing those that commit crimes doesn't do anything compared to systematically removing firearms from the law abiding. Interesting.

Those are your words, not mine.

Quote from roughnready : The substantiation is common sense. The NRA likes to throw around the idea that federal firearms prosecutions have dropped, without mentioning that firearms crimes are usually prosecuted at the state level and that violent crime in general has dropped (and that they've also sought to have the ATF weakend).

So you were discussing state level prosecutions in response to a post about all prosecutions? Makes sense. However, your common sense is still flawed in that your correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation; nor does it lead credence to not allowing federal prosecutions doesn't do anything for gun related deaths.

Quote : Consider the problem: the U.S. has a disproportionate number of firearms and firearms deaths per citizen. Most (or all?) of the recent mass killings are inflicted by previously "law abiding" people. How would enforcing the laws already on the books have prevented these people from carrying out their crimes?

Why are you now changing the goal posts to only include those that commit mass killings? The OP is an entirely valid example of a failed prosecution that could have prevented a firearm death. This person wasn't law abiding and yet was still able to kill. How about we solve that issue before an outright ban based on the sheer minority of law abiding that may kill (discounting those that are mentally ill and should have restrictions already).

Quote : If they had less efficient weapons and smaller magazines, on the other hand, we know that they could not have killed as fast.

What is fast? The VT shooter committed his murders over a long period of time with supposed inefficient hand guns and smaller magazines. Clearly that didn't do much, huh?

The Newtown shooter had 2 handguns as well as his AR. He took the time to put over 2 shots in each kid. Clearly time wasn't an issue in terms of his spree, and the large magazines he used was of a minimal factor.

Quote : In other words, stemming the supply of large magazines and assault weapons is a sure thing. Some vague notion of enforcing existing laws is not.

Based on what exactly? The vast, vast majority of firearm homicides are caused by handguns. Rifles (not even the subset of ARs) account for a fraction of firearm homicides (4%). And the notion of limiting magazine size has already been shown to be negligible in terms of homicides. The outrage against law abiding AR owners is entirely misguided based on a few highly publicized instances.

Quote : Why are you now changing the goal posts to only include those that commit mass killings? The OP is an entirely valid example of a failed prosecution that could have prevented a firearm death. This person wasn't law abiding and yet was still able to kill. How about we solve that issue before an outright ban based on the sheer minority of law abiding that may kill (discounting those that are mentally ill and should have restrictions already).

Change it to all killings then. Which will more directly lead to fewer firearms related deaths -- fewer firearms or more federal prosecutions? Again, the answer is pretty much common sense.

Quote : What is fast? The VT shooter committed his murders over a long period of time with supposed inefficient hand guns and smaller magazines. Clearly that didn't do much, huh? The Newtown shooter had 2 handguns as well as his AR. He took the time to put over 2 shots in each kid. Clearly time wasn't an issue in terms of his spree, and the large magazines he used was of a minimal factor.

Since we are talking about all killings, look at it on a larger scale, if 1000 gun murderers have three minutes to kill (Group A) and 1000 gun murderers have 30 seconds (Group B), which group members, on average, will kill more people?

Quote from roughnready : Change it to all killings then. Which will more directly lead to fewer firearms related deaths -- fewer firearms or more federal prosecutions? Again, the answer is pretty much common sense.

Common sense based on flawed reasoning. Which guns are you looking to ban specifically?

Quote : Since we are talking about all killings, look at it on a larger scale, if 1000 gun murderers have three minutes to kill (Group A) and 1000 gun murderers have 30 seconds (Group B), which group members, on average, will kill more people?

This question illustrates what, exactly?

Quote from paperboy05 : This question illustrates what, exactly?

Faster guns with more bullets kill more people. Again, this is common sense. But as I've said before, most ardent pro-gun folks deliberately ignore common sense.

Quote from roughnready : Faster guns with more bullets kill more people.

Your example didn't include any reference to firearms or number of bullets.

Quote : Again, this is common sense. But as I've said before, most ardent pro-gun folks deliberately ignore common sense.

And yet contrary to your common sense, most murders aren't caused by fast guns and lots of bullets.

Hell, even the mass muders that happened could have still happened with pistols and limited magazines. Time was something they all had considering there was no opposition until police arrived and located the shooters.

Quote from paperboy05 : Your example didn't include any reference to firearms or number of bullets.

A larger magainze means more bullets and more time to shoot, no?

Quote : And yet contrary to your common sense, most murders aren't caused by fast guns and lots of bullets. Hell, even the mass muders that happened could have still happened with pistols and limited magazines. Time was something they all had considering there was no opposition until police arrived and located the shooters.

Fast guns and lots of bullets make murder easier, which is why we need to regulate guns. It's the same reason why I am not allowed to possess a nuclear bomb. It makes murder too easy.

Quote from roughnready : A larger magainze means more bullets and more time to shoot, no?

A larger magazine shot for 5 seconds can kill less then many smaller magazines over a large amount of time, no?

Quote : Fast guns and lots of bullets make murder easier, which is why we need to regulate guns.

And yet the vast majority of murders are caused by slow guns with small magazines. Which is why AWB is pointless.

Again, which guns do you want to ban?

Quote : It's the same reason why I am not allowed to possess a nuclear bomb. It makes murder too easy.

Well that and it's not arms.