Common Sense Gun Control

Link: Gunman Who Shot 2 Cops & an EMT To Death Was Prohibited From Owning Guns

The man who fatally shot two Burnsville, Minnesota, police officers and a firefighter/paramedic Sunday morning has been identified as 38-year-old Shannon Cortez Gooden.

KARE 11 reported Gooden “was prohibited from possessing firearms as the result of a 2008 2nd-degree felony assault with a deadly weapon conviction.” They noted that Gooden sought to have his firearm rights restored in 2019 but First District Court Judge Dannia Edwards refused...

Waitaminit. Are you trying to tell me that criminals don't obey the law? That can't be. I've been reliably informed that laws against gun ownership will save us all.

...Gooden “had several guns and a large amount of ammunition within the home” when he killed the officers and paramedic.

The law is unequivocal: he couldn't have any of those things. That's gotta be fake news.

 

I've been trying to communicate the simple reality that criminals don't obey laws for decades but those who dislike firearms don't believe me.

There aren't but so many ways to say that criminals, by definition, don't obey laws.

Thanks,

 

Are you saying that nobody should be prohibited from owning guns, regardless of any previous offences? Or is it that they just need to be more effectively enforced?

Pretty much every law gets broken, some of them routinely, but that in itself isn't a reason not to have any laws. Even if the legal restriction didn't deter or prevent this specific crime, that doesn't mean it hasn't deterred or prevented others.

 

The only solution is to make the penalty for breaking the law so severe that no one but the most idiotic among us will even attempt to break it. Pass a law where ANY gun crime is punishable with a mandatory minimum life sentence with no possibility of parole. That goes for any gun crime, even something as simple as brandishing a weapon in public. It would also work with many other things, such as speeding. If the penalty for going 10 miles per hour over the speed limit was life imprisonment, guess what 99% of the population would stop doing overnight.

 

If that works , why don't we just do that with all gun possession then ?

 

It is harder to get ahold of a gun when you cannot legally possess one. This is probably why the man tried to have his rights restored. When that failed, he was forced to obtain one through other means. Sure, criminals don’t obey the law. But not everyone will put fourth the additional effort to get a gun that they cannot legally possess.

 

In a free society, isn't the citizen entitled to disobey unworthy, illegitimate legislation?

 

I wouldn't even know where to begin to find out how to obtain a gun illegally. If I ever did lose my LTC I certainly wouldn't try to find out how to get a gun illegally. I'd just live with the consequences. That being said, I don't see me ever committing a crime to put me in a position to lose my gun license and guns.

 

Because there aren't enough police to enforce it. Gun owners in The United States outnumber our law enforcement by 300 to 1. Fortunately, 99% of those gun owners are law abiding. To pre-emptively remove guns from every citizen, whether they've committed a crime or not, would border on thought crime, a dystopia I'm sure liberals would love to see.

 

It's not hard to do. Anyone can purchase a firearm at a gun show all day long. Yes, some of the more legit sellers who own a business and have an FFL will require a background check, but private sellers don't have to. For example, my son wanted a new pistol. We went to a local gun show, picked one out, paid cash for it, no questions asked, walked out the door.

 

What you are describing is not a free society, but anarchy.

 

Yep. He'd already been convicted of assault with a deadly weapon. Most violent felons have their gun rights revoked, but that's only meaningful if the revocation is enforced, with prejudice. 'Twould appear the local authorities couldn't even be bothered to check on this cockroach.

Something tells me that's cold comfort to the families of the two slaughtered cops and murdered EMT. Enforce the freaking law - especially with violent vermin like this guy.

 

Of course.

On the other hand, if the free society disagrees with the citizen and considers the legislation to be worthy and legitimate, the free society may reasonably impose a penalty for disobedience up to and including execution. So tread carefully.

 

Illogical: because some people will violate the law the law must not exist....
Perhaps this logic could be applied to the Southern Border.

 

Are you saying we shouldn't have any gun related laws? Or....are you saying we shouldn't have MORE gun related laws? I'm with you on the latter. IF you subscribe to the former question then I'm not with you on that.

 

It is far from reasonable to believe that someone willing to risk the penalty for breaking murder laws would not be willing to break a gun law. Armed citizens is a deterrent; gun laws benefit killers.

 

Everybody knows that if a murderer wants to kill someone, and having a gun is against the law, they will follow that law.

 

Out of curiosity, what gun related laws do you agree with.

Not being argumentative, just curious.

 

Proven domestic violence, rape, robbery, assault, child abuse, hate crimes, public threats of violence. All of those should result in the immediate revocation of your ability to possess a firearm for the duration of your life.

 

We could also cut off the hand of anyone caught stealing, and stone to death any woman caught committing adultery. We could drastically stop the vast majority of these wrongs overnight.

Is that REALLY the society that we want?

You don't see a lot of crime in North Korea. Perhaps they have it all figured out.

 

You assume any authority has the legal right to proactively check people prohibited from owning firearms without some specific due cause. I'd also suggest at least as much focus needs to be on where he got the guns and ammunition from, since it is through legitimate sellers that these restrictions are primarily meant to be checked.

I don't think you can ignore the impact of gun rights activists, who routinely push back against any such laws, even if they're specifically targeted at past offenders.

 

It wouldn't be pretty, but I guarantee you it would work. Or would you rather continue to live in a world where mass shootings, rape, robbery, and adultery, among a plethora of other crimes, are the daily norm?

 

Not harder, more expensive! But if you're selling drugs, ass or all those other hard to get vices you'd just raise the price to cover the cost of the illegal weapon..

 

It would work to a large extent, and it wouldn't be pretty. On that, we agree.

If you see this as a viable solution, that is where we disagree. There are plenty of nations with cruel and unusual punishments that do in fact have low rates of crime. None of them are a place where Id want to live.

 

Are you sure about that?

I mean "domestic violence" can mean standing in a doorway. "Assault" can mean bumping into someone. "Child abuse" can be anything the state doesn't like. "Hate crime" can be calling a woman a woman. "Robbery" could be shoplifting a pack of gum.

Two consenting adults can get on the "sex offender" list for having sex in public.

This sounds good on paper, but it allows the state to define why they want to take away your rights.

It's not what we technically CALL a crime, but the actual actions that cross a line that need to be defined.