Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Endus]

From what I understand there are guidlines and it's not just abitrary.

https://www.legalmatch.com/law-libra...as-adults.html

When it includes "standards" like "the crime was so serious", it's not an objective standard, it's entirely prosecutorial opinion, and it's being rooted in emotion, not reason.

[Orange Joe]

When it includes "standards" like "the crime was so serious", it's not an objective standard, it's entirely prosecutorial opinion, and it's being rooted in emotion, not reason.

I mean this wasn't written to legal standards. It's just an outline from a legal source. This is a page to help normal people understand. I'm sure if you wanted you could find it in legalese and see what "so serious" means.

[Mekh]

I mean this wasn't written to legal standards. It's just an outline from a legal source. This is a page to help normal people understand. I'm sure if you wanted you could find it in legalese and see what "so serious" means.

More questionable than "so serious" is probably "it is believed".

[Orange Joe]

I mean this wasn't written to legal standards. It's just an outline from a legal source. This is a page to help normal people understand. I'm sure if you wanted you could find it in legalese and see what "so serious" means.

More questionable than "so serious" is probably "it is believed".

Read above.

[Mekh]

Read above.

Is that you tacitly admitting your source is so bad it wouldn't write an objective standard if it existed?

[Orange Joe]

Is that you tacitly admitting your source is so bad it wouldn't write an objective standard if it existed?

Take it however you want. Cause it won't matter what I say you already have you mind set on something.

- - - Updated - - -

Is that you tacitly admitting your source is so bad it wouldn't write an objective standard if it existed?

IS this better for you? it doesn't use the term so serious.

https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.co...juvenile-adult

[Mekh]

Take it however you want. Cause it won't matter what I say you already have you mind set on something.

- - - Updated - - -



IS this better for you? it doesn't use the term so serious.

https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.co...juvenile-adult

It's a better source, but all it shows is, that it -is- in fact arbitrary.

Hell, it includes even this bit that points out what Endus and I have been talking about:

Allowing the prosecutor to decide whether to try a child as an adult is a controversial policy because the prosecutor is not a neutral party in the case.

[Orange Joe]

It's a better source, but all it shows is, that it -is- in fact arbitrary.

Hell, it includes even this bit that points out what Endus and I have been talking about:

Allowing the prosecutor to decide whether to try a child as an adult is a controversial policy because the prosecutor is not a neutral party in the case.

Odd. I thought you guys were upset that there were no guidelines and that it was all arbitrary.


As for your quote the ONLY "neutral" party in a trial is the judge. Guess who CAN'T change charges.

[Mekh]

Odd. I thought you guys were upset that there were no guidelines and that it was all arbitrary.

Non-binding guidelines -are- arbitrary.

[Orange Joe]

Non-binding guidelines -are- arbitrary.

What is non binding about those guidelines compared to say any law that has multiple levels? IE manslaughter vs murder and so on.

[Mekh]

What is non binding about those guidelines compared to say any law that has multiple levels? IE manslaughter vs murder and so on.

Tell me you haven't read your source without telling me you haven't read your source.

[Orange Joe]

Tell me you haven't read your source without telling me you haven't read your source.

Tell me you can't counter without telling me you can't counter.

[Mekh]

Tell me you can't counter without telling me you can't counter.

Dude, I'm not gonna waste my time with it.

Your source contains gold like

Factors that may influence the judge's decision or a prosecutor's request to transfer a juvenile case to adult court include the age of the juvenile.

and you are here acting like a hard number like age has as much nuance and context like the difference between murder and manslaughter.

[Orange Joe]

Dude, I'm not gonna waste my time with it.

Your source contains gold like



and you are here acting like a hard number like age has as much nuance and context like the difference between murder and manslaughter.

Yeah, no. I don't know what you're reading but it isn't what I'm saying. So have fun I guess. Age isn't the only factor on charging a juvenile as an adult.

Do you think an 8 year old shooting someone with a gun is the same as a 15 year old shooting someone?

[PhaelixWW]

Yeah, no. I don't know what you're reading but it isn't what I'm saying. So have fun I guess. Age isn't the only factor on charging a juvenile as an adult.

Do you think an 8 year old shooting someone with a gun is the same as a 15 year old shooting someone?

More importantly, this was firmly premeditated. Minors aren't typically prosecuted as adults because they don't generally have the reasoning capacity to think through the consequences of their actions. The premeditation here proves that this shooter definitely thought very deliberately about the consequences of his actions.

And there's nothing mutually exclusive about the parents being held accountable and the kid being charged as an adult. Adults get charged as an accessory to other adults all the time.

[Edge-]

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...ichigan-school

And this is why nothing will be done. A bill to expand background checks introduced much earlier this year - even if it wouldn't have necessarily prevented the latest mass school shooting - is stonewalled in Congress by one member. The Republican bill they want to pass instead doesn't do much beyond tell government agencies they need to accurately report data they're already accurately reporting, and reduce overall background checks.

It would prohibit a firearm transfer between individuals unless a licensed gun dealer or manufacture conducts a background check.

Why there is any opposition to thorough background checks before someone can purchase a firearm is beyond me. Person-to-person sales of guns should never happen without a background check and records of the gun purchaser. For liability reasons to protect the gun seller and purchaser.

"But it won't stop the criminals"

Laws never do, so if that's your argument then you're functionally arguing for the elimination of all laws.

[Endus]

Do you think an 8 year old shooting someone with a gun is the same as a 15 year old shooting someone?

See, this is a perfect example of the problem. Let's narrow it down.

Is there a difference between an 8 year old and a 9 year old shooting someone? If "no", then "9 years old" is the same category as "8 years old).

So what about 10 years old? 11? 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17? Which specific year creates the insurmountable difference that justifies a sudden and rapid change in how they're treated under the law? We can skip 18 because that's arbitrarily "adulthood" already (which is a separate point of discussion).

Once we've narrowed down the single precise year, let's get into which month the change happens. Not like "January or July", but "year + 4 months".

And once we've done that, let's dig down to days.

At some point in here, you're going to have to acknowledge that the idea of a binary divide between two systems doesn't make sense. Particularly over an inconsistent metric like age (as people develop differently). Particularly when the determining factors aren't objectively determinable like age is, but are entirely subjective to the prosecutor based on what feels right to them.

Everyone can agree that there's a difference between a toddler shooting someone (happens more often than you'd think, before you claim that's ridiculous) and a 16-year-old school shooter. The same way we can agree there's a difference between stealing a candy bar and grand theft auto. But the distinction in the latter is very clear, and based on the objectively-determinable value of the stolen property. The distinction in the former is not clear, because we can charge children as adults whenever we feel like we should and everything's hinky-winky and based on feels, not facts.

As you narrow theft down, there are clear identifiable cutoff points for valuation to distinguish between different levels. Those cutoff points do not exist, between the juvenile and adult systems of justice. It's just the prosecutor's feelings that day. That's it. There's some basic guidelines, sure, but they all have judgement calls built in.

[Orange Joe]

See, this is a perfect example of the problem. Let's narrow it down.

Is there a difference between an 8 year old and a 9 year old shooting someone? If "no", then "9 years old" is the same category as "8 years old).

So what about 10 years old? 11? 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17? Which specific year creates the insurmountable difference that justifies a sudden and rapid change in how they're treated under the law? We can skip 18 because that's arbitrarily "adulthood" already (which is a separate point of discussion).

Once we've narrowed down the single precise year, let's get into which month the change happens. Not like "January or July", but "year + 4 months".

And once we've done that, let's dig down to days.

At some point in here, you're going to have to acknowledge that the idea of a binary divide between two systems doesn't make sense. Particularly over an inconsistent metric like age (as people develop differently). Particularly when the determining factors aren't objectively determinable like age is, but are entirely subjective to the prosecutor based on what feels right to them.

Everyone can agree that there's a difference between a toddler shooting someone (happens more often than you'd think, before you claim that's ridiculous) and a 16-year-old school shooter. The same way we can agree there's a difference between stealing a candy bar and grand theft auto. But the distinction in the latter is very clear, and based on the objectively-determinable value of the stolen property. The distinction in the former is not clear, because we can charge children as adults whenever we feel like we should and everything's hinky-winky and based on feels, not facts.

As you narrow theft down, there are clear identifiable cutoff points for valuation to distinguish between different levels. Those cutoff points do not exist, between the juvenile and adult systems of justice. It's just the prosecutor's feelings that day. That's it. There's some basic guidelines, sure, but they all have judgement calls built in.

If you arguing that 90% of what we base our society on if "arbitrary"

Why are they an adult at 18? Why not 13 or 15? Why is age of consent 16 in most of the worst? Why not 30?

Why is the smoking at 21? Why can you join the military at 18? Why can you get a job at 14?

Why is retirement at the age of 60? why not 70 or 50?

See how stupid this is?

How about we go with age isn't the 1 single factor in deciding this. There are many factors in deciding the try a child as an adult.

Everyone can agree that there's a difference between a toddler shooting someone (happens more often than you'd think, before you claim that's ridiculous) and a 16-year-old school shooter. The same way we can agree there's a difference between stealing a candy bar and grand theft auto. But the distinction in the latter is very clear, and based on the objectively-determinable value of the stolen property. The distinction in the former is not clear, because we can charge children as adults whenever we feel like we should and everything's hinky-winky and based on feels, not facts.

Yeah, no bullshit. How they decide was outlined in both links I gave you and age was a small factor of many.

[Endus]

"But it won't stop the criminals"

Laws never do, so if that's your argument then you're functionally arguing for the elimination of all laws.

People seem to think all laws are about stopping hardened, organized crime.

A hell of a lot of them aren't.

They're about disincentivizing bad or harmful conduct by the average citizen. Like, building standards for construction, making sure everything is up to a certain code for safety; that's not there because people are trying to build houses that will collapse, it's there because contractors will often try and cut corners to save costs. Trim enough corners, and things fall apart.

Gun control isn't really about directly stopping gang members from having guns. It's about stopping Average Joe from having a gun so his fight with his ex-wife escalates and he shoots her to shut her up. Or Average Jane giving her gun to Criminal Brother Joe because he lost his. Or private citizens working to buy guns legally and traffick them to those who'd fail background checks. It's about reducing the presence of firearms in society, so that (due to market principles), the value of an illicitly-acquired weapon goes up, and changing the culture so the average citizens don't all have gun-hammers, which make every problem start to look like bullet-nails (to torture the metaphor). Just adding enough extra little hitches to everything that it all gets way more complicated and awkward and maybe a lot less people bother, meaning there's less guns out there, which means kids like this school shooter don't get a gun from their proud parents so they can go kill a bunch of their schoolmates.

[Edge-]

People seem to think all laws are about stopping hardened, organized crime.

Shit man, very few of our laws are about that. Most are things like seatbelt laws or laws requiring you to stop at a stop sign. Or not punching random people in the face.