From: Michael Lorrey <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>One of the problems with our overburdened legal system is that
>whenever a violent crime case goes to court, the prosecutors are
>almost always happy to plea bargain. When they do, the first
>charge to be dismissed is always the weapons charge. Pass a law
>against dismissing weapons charges in plea bargains.
I agree 100%, the idea was that they would not be able to dismiss the weapons charge, and punishment would result for deliberately breaking the law.
>Now, aside from parental negligence charges and mandating weapons
>charges be immune from plea bargaining, all gun control laws
>should be repealed. As Prof. John Lotts landmark study proved
>beyond a reasonable doubt, making it easy for law abiding citizens
>to carry concealed weapons reduces violent crime. The decreases
>range from an average of 8% overall decrease in violent crime, to
>such marked decreases as an 80% decrease in multiple death spree
>type killings within 5 years of the liberalization of gun laws.
I again agree 100%. I have John Lotts book. I support concealed carry. I am former NRA/ILA. But in a town where the average citizen has no idea that handguns have been banned 15 years ago the chance of getting concealed carry passed is 0.0 the odds of getting all gun laws repealed is less than that. We must enforce personnal responsibility first, fill the jails with lawbreakers, and force people to see the hypocrisy going on.
>Furthermore, as the GAO Audit of the performance of the Brady
>Bill's 5 day waiting period shows, criminals do not buy guns from
>legal sources, so this intrusion into the privacy of law abiding
>private citizens should end. While Clinton claimed that the Brady
>Bill prevented 100,000 criminals from buying guns, the GAO report
>showed that of these, all but 12 were false denials based on
>clerical or computer errors, or were unjustly refused because of
>nonrelevant records like traffic tickets, etc. Of the 12 who were
>actually criminally buying guns, only one was ever prosecuted,
>even though the Brady Bill mandated prosecution and a minimum
>charge. So 100,000 law abiding citizens rights are violated for
>every one criminal prosecuted, at an expense of $500 million. Now
>thats cost effective law enforcement, don't you think?
One of the new gun laws Daley is proposing would prevent gun shops from selling handguns to residents of Chicago. I actually like the idea, either people will move out as I have done, or will scream bloody murder. either works for me.
I always loved the bit on "Saturday Night Live" when Charleton Heston guest hosted. "We of the NRA will LOAN you a gun for 5 days, just visit anyone of our 2000 outlets..."
>Use of a gun in murder should be an automatic death sentence, with
>restricted numbers of appeals, and a mandated maximum time from
>sentencing to execution. Prof. Lott's study also showed that the
>Death Penalty as it exists today, has little to no effect on
>violent crime rates. Only the death sentences meted out by private
>citizens lawfully defending themselves seems to have a significant
>impact on crime, so the more like crime scene justice we can make
>our justice system the more deterrent it should be against crime.
I agree once again 100%. I favor the death penalty. I left out the death penalty in the interest of getting the thing passed. It should be a provision however.
>The Mayor of Chicago should start wondering why it is that the
>cities and states with the most restrictive gun laws seem to have
>the highest crime rates.
He already knows this, The mayor is surrounded by armed body guards, and the mayor and city council exempted themselves by appointing themselves "officers of the court". They may conceal carry, (most do!) but the average joe is less important. A blatant double standard.
I couldn't agree with you more Michael.
Member, Extropy Institute