Where Do You Stand on the Death Penalty

Damocles said:
They do sell them to gun dealers. At least here they do, then I get to purchase them at a price lower than I would otherwise have to pay.

In this case the gun is far more easily trackable if I do anything at all illegal with it as well. It has been fired and 'printed' so that if they find a bullet from my gun it can easily be tracked back to me.

If they do this with evidence guns used in crimes, they then use the proceeds from selling them to dealers to create a restitution fund for victims...
Click to expand...

Here they just have public gun sales dealers or anyone can buy then as long as they pass background checks, etc.
 
Care4all said:
I don't think it makes a difference one way or the other, with the gun market.

I do think that if I were the wife or the sister of the person that was KILLED by the killer using that gun, that along with the criminal, the gun should be retired....

And knowing that a gun I bought, was a gun that was used to murder someone....would be UNACCEPTABLE to me....
Click to expand...
A house that somebody was murdered in would also likely be 'unacceptable' to you, but does that mean we should 'retire' every apartment building where a murder had taken place? Every house? What about the resources it takes to build such places?

Seriously, don't purchase the guns, it would be easily determined as it is with the former LE guns that I usually purchase.

If it were a hammer you'd likely want it 'retired' too, but what would be the purpose? It is better that the criminal is put in prison, than the gun be punished for what the criminal did with it.
 
RStringfield said:
for Guns? Yeah, thisthread is going to get hijacked, but...

The mayor of Omaha has proposed amending the gun laws so that all guns used in the commission of a crime be destroyed. Apparently, it's the guns fault and they need to be punished severely. How freaking stupid can you get?

They ought to sell them and use the proceeds for restitution.
Click to expand...

I don't really see the point of the law. If you want less gun crime, ban guns. Criminals will just go out and buy new guns.

It just really doesn't make a whole mess of difference whether or not you destroy them.

And... it'd be kind of weird to sell a gun that had been used to commit a murder, IMO.
 
uscitizen said:
But the new gun will cost much more than the used one sold at auction or sale. better economics ;) Plus it will provide employment and profit at the manufacturing, distribution and retail level.

I just think it is silly for law enforcement to be in the business of putting guns into the marketplace.
Click to expand...

If all an economy needed was jobs, US, the government could make infinity "jobs". Destroying something just to make it again isn't efficient economics under any definition.
 
RStringfield said:
for Guns? Yeah, thisthread is going to get hijacked, but...

The mayor of Omaha has proposed amending the gun laws so that all guns used in the commission of a crime be destroyed. Apparently, it's the guns fault and they need to be punished severely. How freaking stupid can you get?

They ought to sell them and use the proceeds for restitution.
Click to expand...
You have a death penallty for guns????:shock: :confused: :eek:

but then again, I'm sure Darla would think this was a lovely and "HONEST" thread title.
 
No wonder guns kill people they spend almost all their lives licked away. How could they develop any social skills ?
 
uscitizen said:
No wonder guns kill people they spend almost all their lives licked away. How could they develop any social skills ?
Click to expand...

If you are spending your whole life getting licked, you've got social skills. I don't know where you picked them up, but you've got them.
 
ib1yysguy said:
No, Mr. Mediocre, the gun was owned by a man who is now a felon. He is no longer able to buy a gun and his demand is gone from the market. The gun put back on the market would be a surplus of what the market demanded before the man's conviction.
Click to expand...

Far below mediocre...

There are others who demand guns and his gun could satisfy their demand, meaning one less gun need be produced. What the market demanded before his convistion is not even the least bit relevant.
 
uscitizen said:
But the new gun will cost much more than the used one sold at auction or sale. better economics ;) Plus it will provide employment and profit at the manufacturing, distribution and retail level.

I just think it is silly for law enforcement to be in the business of putting guns into the marketplace.
Click to expand...


Broken window pane fallacy. You guys are dumbasses.
 
Care4all said:
I don't think it makes a difference one way or the other, with the gun market.

I do think that if I were the wife or the sister of the person that was KILLED by the killer using that gun, that along with the criminal, the gun should be retired....

And knowing that a gun I bought, was a gun that was used to murder someone....would be UNACCEPTABLE to me....
Click to expand...


Murder is not the standard for destroying the "criminal" guns.
 
Maybe the lefties are hoping that criminals form emotional bonds with their weapons and that once they are destroyed, the criminals become sad and repentent at the loss.
After all, criminals are caring people. :)
 
RStringfield said:
Murder is not the standard for destroying the "criminal" guns.
Click to expand...

Still - it would be pretty weird for the government to confiscate and sell any gun that had been used to shoot someone. A gun that was used in an armed robbery would still be pretty weird.

And imagine all the sickos out there who would collect them JUST because someone was killed with them.
 
Watermark said:
Still - it would be pretty weird for the government to confiscate and sell any gun that had been used to shoot someone. A gun that was used in an armed robbery would still be pretty weird.

And imagine all the sickos out there who would collect them JUST because someone was killed with them.
Click to expand...

So? As long as the sicko did not enrich the criminal, who cares? Destroy the gun and they could collect some other piece, e.g., the clothes the murderer wore, his home, car, etc.. Should we destroy everything that the murderer came into contact with all in order to stop what we may perceive to be a depraved collector.
 
If you were arguing that any murder weapon should be destroyed, that would be something else, though still rather ridiculous and based on nothing but short sighted emotion. This law has nothing to do with murder weapons. It is specifically for guns used in the commission of any crime.
 
Watermark said:
Still - it would be pretty weird for the government to confiscate and sell any gun that had been used to shoot someone. A gun that was used in an armed robbery would still be pretty weird.

And imagine all the sickos out there who would collect them JUST because someone was killed with them.
Click to expand...

My issued rifle has killed people. Before I was born at that. I have Milsurp guns with notches cut into the stock, and I hold no misconceptions about what those notches mean.

What's so bad about surplusing off firearms? New ones dont create new jobs or economic demand, just raise the price of materials (since the makers have long ago employed and tooled up to meet current demands). Besides surplus firearms can give help to the poor who are often unable to afford tools for self defense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top