babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » election 2006   » Has any candidate read the existing gun laws?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Has any candidate read the existing gun laws?
jim van rassel
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11645

posted 13 January 2006 02:17 PM      Profile for jim van rassel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The existing gun laws are already some of the toughest gun laws in the world. The way I see it is to following through with the minimum sentences as stated in our gun laws already. So the lack of inforcement of our laws is the real problem.
From: British Columbia | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
BillyBrindle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10636

posted 13 January 2006 02:20 PM      Profile for BillyBrindle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jim van rassel:
The existing gun laws are already some of the toughest gun laws in the world. The way I see it is to following through with the minimum sentences as stated in our gun laws already. So the lack of inforcement of our laws is the real problem.

Well, I agree. However, you won't find many here who will.

And that's the beauty of freedom.


From: n/a | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
B_Nichol
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8212

posted 13 January 2006 03:48 PM      Profile for B_Nichol   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
My understanding is that the charge that holds the minimum sentence is often dropped or pled out in favour of the original charge, say Armed Robbery. The convicted then receives a sentence substantially less than the 4-year(?) minimum that would have been applied to the charge of committing an offence with a firearm.
You're right, the law's already there; applying it correctly is the problem.

From: North-central-Southern Alberta | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
jim van rassel
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11645

posted 13 January 2006 04:11 PM      Profile for jim van rassel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The way I read the laws regarding minimums is an Automatic amount of time for commiting the crime with a fire arm + time for the offence comitited. The term Automatic is non negotiable.
From: British Columbia | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 13 January 2006 04:16 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Maybe before condemning people who decide what crimes people are charged with (right wingers for the most part) people should try and learn a little more about how stricter adherence to the minimum sentencing (assuming it isn't already required,) would effect their ability to take criminals off the street.

Wouldn't it be ironic if forcing the state representatives to always charge people with crimes with minimum sentences when ever there was any kind of evidence at all of firearm involvement, actually lead to a higher degree of crime charged, thus a higher standard of proof required, and thus more criminals let off and put back on the street?


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
BillyBrindle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10636

posted 13 January 2006 05:16 PM      Profile for BillyBrindle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by No Yards:

Wouldn't it be ironic if forcing the state representatives to always charge people with crimes with minimum sentences when ever there was any kind of evidence at all of firearm involvement, actually lead to a higher degree of crime charged, thus a higher standard of proof required, and thus more criminals let off and put back on the street?


*two slow blinks*

Um, what?

I am big enough to admit I am too dumb to understand that paragraph.

[ 13 January 2006: Message edited by: BillyBrindle ]


From: n/a | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Arctic Pig
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11568

posted 13 January 2006 05:45 PM      Profile for Arctic Pig   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Why do you assume that a higher "degree of crime" would lead to a higher standard of proof? While I'd certainly expect the courts to devote more effort to a serious beating than to the theft of a pizza, the effort expended in the beating case would be the same were the crime called attempted murder or aggravated assault.

Of course, allowing plea bargaining permits the courts to quickly and assuredly dispense smaller punishments to the guilty, rather than clog the courts with more high-stakes cases that can be lost.

I have a general difficulty with mandatory minimums, as they wrest the exercise of judgement away from the judiciary. I agree with the original poster to this thread, that good enforcement of the law, leading to the belief that it is likely that crimes committed will be punished, is key to any strategy to lower crime rates.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca