Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

itsonlyastrongbuzz t1_iu3yltq wrote

Reply to comment by Chippopotanuse in Police confiscate loaded gun from 7-year-old at Dorchester school by rabblebowser

>The parents NEED to be charged with a crime that bans them from ever owning or possessing firearms again.

The problem is this sort of presumes the gun that started this whole thing was bought legally in the first place.

If the gun was illegally acquired then banning them from legally acquiring a gun isn’t really punishment is it?

EDIT:

Either people seem to be misunderstanding my comment, or I didn’t articulate myself correctly (more likely).

The parents should face jail time, fines, etc.

Actual consequences.

My point is if they already are shown to possess illegal firearms, then banning them from legally possessing firearms doesnt seem like much punishment in and of itself.

Important, sure, but not severe.

Someone who has shown a history of driving with a suspended license isn’t really punished by further suspending their licenses.

The parents deserve something more severe.

It should include banning from legally owning firearms, but that ban should be addition to the punishment, not the sole consequence.

−26

Chippopotanuse t1_iu3z3y9 wrote

If the gun was bought illegally, that’s another crime the parents should be charged with. But we don’t know how they acquired it.

I’m fine holding folks accountable for breaking the law when it comes to firearms. Whether it’s negligent ownership or illegal purchases.

44

itsonlyastrongbuzz t1_iu42kac wrote

Totally agreed.

I agreed with your original premise, just wanted to clarify that banning future firearms as a punishment is only a punishment if they originally followed the law.

Understood that if the gun was acquired illegally that’s a new crime in and of itself.

5

Chippopotanuse t1_iu44kkg wrote

Banning firearm possession creates an entirely new category of criminal jeopardy if they are found in possession.

Felon in possession is a serious crime. And when prosecuted, almost always ends in a jail sentence. Almost always a man. Almost always a US citizen. With an average sentence of 5 years.

Here are some stats for anyone who cares:

  • 97.7% of felon in possession of a firearm offenders were men.

  • 94.5% were United States citizens.

  • 97.6% of felon in possession of a firearm offenders were sentenced to prison; sentences varied widely by whether a mandatory minimum penalty applied in the case.

  • The average sentence for all felon in possession of a firearm offenders was 64 months.

Source: https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/quick-facts/Felon_In_Possession_FY18.pdf

7

NoMoLerking t1_iu46i8l wrote

If the gun was bought illegally the parents can just play dumb. Gun? What gun?

−5

DocPsychosis t1_iu47bcm wrote

It turns out that defendants can still be prosecuted even if they don't confess!

4

NoMoLerking t1_iu48ggj wrote

That requires a lot of detailed and difficult police work though.

−1

tacknosaddle t1_iu4dsdt wrote

You think you're making a wise point, but you are not.

If the gun is owned by one of the parents or another adult in the home and it is legally owned there are a host of charges related to securing a gun and ammunition that they can be charged with.

If the gun is owned by one of the parents or another adult in the home and they are not permitted to legally own the gun then there are additional charges that they will face.

Your comment tries to pretend that the punishment will be non-existent if it is illegally owned because they will just go out and illegally acquire another gun, but the reality is that they are in more trouble because of it.

So, nice try but a swing and a miss and the downvotes demonstrate that most people see right through your silly trick.

4

itsonlyastrongbuzz t1_iu4foaw wrote

>Your comment tries to pretend that the punishment will be non-existent if it is illegally owned because they will just go out and illegally acquire another gun, but the reality is that they are in more trouble because of it.

I never said punishment would be non existent.

Ever.

The premise was that if they already acquired an illegal firearm, then a felony on their record that prevents them from legally obtaining a firearm isn’t a huge deterrent or obstacle from obtaining one since they’ve already proven the ability to.

I didn’t say that the illegal possession carried no other consequences (fines, jail time, probation) just that legal ownership of weapons in the future is a slap on the wrist in the scheme of things.

If you habitually drove with a suspended license, a further suspension of your license isn’t a huge punishment in and of itself.

2

tacknosaddle t1_iu4lkyd wrote

If you want to have this discussion maybe you should actually look at the laws for illegal gun possession and the penalties for subsequent offenses. You come off as foolish implying that there are no consequences or that it's a "slap on the wrist" when the minimum sentence jumps from 18 months to five years of incarceration?

You're the only one who is talking about this strawman who gets busted for illegal possession of a gun and is punished by being denied the ability to get a gun permit. Try bringing the conversation to a more realistic set of events.

0

itsonlyastrongbuzz t1_iu4pu4i wrote

> it's a "slap on the wrist" when the minimum sentence jumps from 18 months to five years of incarceration?

The banning of future ownership of firearm is the slap on the wrist, not the jail sentence.

They’ve proven they can get guns illegally so what use is telling them they can’t do it legally?

I never said the jail time was a slap on the wrist.

You’re soo primed to argue you’re missing the idea and jumping to refute points I never made.

1

tacknosaddle t1_iu4ra0w wrote

>You’re soo primed to argue you’re missing the idea and jumping to refute points I never made.

The reason you're being downvoted is because you're ignoring the real world punishments for ones that don't exist. My bringing those consequences up is not to "refute points" you made but to steer the subject to that real world.

So it's not me missing the idea or jumping to refute imaginary points, it's that you started with a ridiculous premise and were deservedly called out for it.

1

scamp41 t1_iu4as7n wrote

Yes what's the point of laws if criminals don't follow them? Great point.

0

tacknosaddle t1_iu4e3no wrote

Yeah, California could save themselves a lot of money by avoiding criminal trials if they just got rid of murder laws since OJ got away with it anyway.

/s

2