Originally posted by HopSkipJump
Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by HopSkipJump
if only it were that simple.
we already have 10-20-Life provisions here, along with 6 million gun owners.
still, the criminal element survives, armed with guns they are supposedly prevented from obtaining
so, your answer is what ?
make it more difficult for the other 2 million to defend themselves if they choose such ?
where is the logic in that ?
edit on 21-1-2013 by Honor93 because: add txt
In this case, an ounce of prevention is not worth a pound of cure. When they are caught doing an illegal act AND have a gun (just like I said in the
post but you ignored), then we double the sentence. If that doesn't work, we triple the sentence. Get it to the point that if they are going to
commit a crime, they don't do it with a gun because they KNOW they will get 2 or 3 times more punishment just for having the gun while doing it.
Then, those who are gun owners and not criminals keep their guns, the criminals don't seek guns and the problem is solved.
Don't take this the wrong way, but if criminals don't care about laws, now, what makes you think they would start caring if the laws were more
The mindset of the criminal is that they think they are smarter than the cops. And when they DO get caught, they blame something besides themselves,
and then get "smarter" while incarcerated. i.e. learn what not to do next time...If criminals feared jail, they wouldn't commit crimes!
But to them, doing time, is a status symbol. So, increased sentences would just make them MORE likely to: kill witnesses, kill cops, kill judges,
etc...They will just be criminals that try harder not to get caught, by using the system to their benefit! Do you get the point?