Speakeasy forum

General discussion

An idea re: 'gun control'

by TONI H / February 15, 2013 8:31 AM PST

Suggestions were asked for on what we can do about the gun violence.

Since so many killings are done by gangs, both for turf and drug wars, I have an idea.

Laws are re-classified all the time in order to change the sentencing.....such as kidnapping (now it's a Federal felony and the FBI gets involved if the person is taken across state lines).

Why not re-classify gang activity as 'domestic terrorism' since that's what it is anyhow, make it a Federal felony with mandated sentences, and have Homeland Security be involved, since this is a HOMELAND SECURITY issue?

If opposing gangs are tossed into a Federal prison (we have lots of them already and some are standing empty), and they find ways to kill each other off in lockup, so what? If there aren't enough prisons to hold them all, build a huge compound in the desert somewhere, dump them all there (ala Back to New York movie with Kurt Russell), and let them "take care" of each other since they enjoy killing so much.

Obviously the ACLU would be outraged with that last idea so consider it just wishful thinking on my part. But the first part of this is a serious thought of mine.

Post a reply
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: An idea re: 'gun control'
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: An idea re: 'gun control'
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
ah yes, sounds like something someone else here approves
by Roger NC / February 15, 2013 8:45 AM PST

give them the weapons to kill themselves and leave them to it.

Send them all to hell on earth, and devil take the hindmost.

Why don't you just limit appeals on death sentences to one, and make more crimes capital?

Your answer is to kill them all off? well it would work.

You think everyone in a gang is equally as guilty? you think no one has ever been wrongly convicted?

Instead of better 10 guilty go free than one innocent go to jail you'd rather all be placed in a kill or be killed situation rather than one guilty go free.

In the past, I didn't realize you were a anticipating, nay looking forward to, apocalypse and I'll survive no matter what it takes and who I kill type.

Collapse -
Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out
by TONI H / February 15, 2013 9:13 AM PST

isn't my motto.....but if they are so into killing each other anyhow, why not give them the arena to do it?

Collapse -
by TONI H / February 15, 2013 9:16 AM PST

if BO can arbitrarily drone Americans overseas based on a SUSPICION, why worry about an 'innocent' gang member here?

Collapse -
oh sometimes I'd like to kill them all
by Roger NC / February 15, 2013 10:05 AM PST
In reply to: Besides

and be done with it.

But I know it's not the way.

Executing them outselves for belonging to a gang and doing a crime would be more honest than dumping them in a wilderness or impound with a gun and saying good luck.

What's the prize for surviving? getting killed by someone younger as you age?

as for justifying it because of something Obama does you disagree with, you adopting the policy well if they do it we should?

Collapse -
We all have those occasional fantasies
by Steven Haninger / February 15, 2013 7:18 PM PST

in moments of frustration. It's nothing to be ashamed of. We just need to be careful who's listening when we say them out loud. Whatever you say can and will be used against you.

Collapse -
(NT) ... or post ...
by drpruner / February 19, 2013 5:34 AM PST
Collapse -
Like in crime syndicates?
by Steven Haninger / February 15, 2013 9:02 AM PST

Isn't that already a federal responsibility? Maybe your idea is plausible. These gangs, in one way or another, engage in "interstate commerce" if connected to drug distribution networks. We really need to prioritize eliminating this activity before worrying about legally purchased guns falling into the wrong hands.

Collapse -
Thank you
by TONI H / February 15, 2013 9:13 AM PST

Charge them all with RICO rules........

Collapse -
When Obama visited Chicago...
by J. Vega / February 15, 2013 11:07 PM PST
In reply to: Thank you

When Obama visited Chicago, he thought what is needed is Gun Control. What was actually needed is "Gang Control".

Collapse -
Kidnapping has been a federal crime for ages
by Josh K / February 18, 2013 10:40 PM PST

That isn't a recent change, Toni. The FBI was involved in the search for the Lindbergh baby.

Gangs are a complicated problem, Toni. A lot of kids end up in them because they're afraid to refuse, and those kids need help, not killin'.

Your "solution" sounds rather barbaric, frankly. This isn't "Escape from New York." That movie was supposed to be a warning about what we could descend into if we cease to be civilized. Apparently you got the wrong message from it.

Collapse -
And 'being civilized'
by TONI H / February 18, 2013 11:30 PM PST

means giving gang members a free rein on society because you can't come up with a real solution to it? Come on, Josh.......if there was real help for 'those kids', it would have been dealt with long ago. Instead, you have police refusing to go into certain areas, especially at night, BECAUSE of the gangs running freely.

Funny how you see my suggestion as 'rather barbaric' but you have no solution to offer and don't call the gang killings barbaric but rather see a lot of kids ending up in gangs as TERRORIZED victims who need help. Get rid of the TERRORISTS by making gang membership a FEDERAL DOMESTIC TERROR group and freaking deal with it. Isn't Homeland Security supposed to protect the HOMELAND?

Collapse -
Do you also propose.....
by Josh K / February 18, 2013 11:41 PM PST
In reply to: And 'being civilized'

....making the Mafia a domestic terror group? You didn't mention them in your original post.

Let's not weaken the definition of terrorism by broadening it too much. Terrorism is terrorism. Gang activity may fall under organized crime statutes but I don't see how it qualifies as terrorism. I'm pretty sure gang leaders have already been prosecuted under the RICO act. No, I do not have links.

Some of that "real help" would come in the form of federal funding for social assistance, education, etc., which your party routinely opposes so don't go hiding behind that as an excuse.

Collapse -
More federal funding for
by TONI H / February 19, 2013 1:26 AM PST

self help crap (or in most cases, you can't help yourself, so other taxpayers will help you instead). You bet your sweet **** my party opposes it.

As for the Mafia......the Feds didn't go after the guns of law-abiding citizens, they went after the CRIMINALS.......and IF the Mafia had been as big a problem as the gangs are today, and IF terrorism was recognized back in those days as it is today, it SHOULD have been labeled a domestic terror group and been under the enforcement of the Federal Government as such.

RICO only seems interested in the gang leaders themselves, when every underling is also guilty of those same laws. Unfortunately most times, the prosecutors are more interested in getting the 'big guys' and plead out or make deals with the underlings in order to make a name for themselves politically. Arrest all under the same laws, prosecute under the same punishments for all, and you begin to tear down the entire empire.

Collapse -
So, in summation.....
by Josh K / February 19, 2013 1:49 AM PST

......you recognize that gangs are a problem and that there are sociological reasons they exist, but you oppose investing anything in trying to solve those problems and prefer a more reactive approach that will likely cost more in the long run.

And there's no "IF" about the Mafia and the impact they've had. Maybe not so much where you are but in big cities, you betcha. They've had a longer-lasting more significant impact on other people's lives than any gang has or ever will. They entrenched themselves in construction, waste removal, food and beverage distribution, pretty much anything that a city needs to function, which drove up prices for all of those goods and services. Starting a business in New York and need your garbage picked up? Vinny will be right over to discuss terms.

And don't start blaming it on "liberals." The mob has been around since the turn of the 20th century.

Collapse -
Vinny and the boys aren't the same problem
by Steven Haninger / February 19, 2013 2:27 AM PST
In reply to: So, in summation.....

If your car stalls at a traffic light, Vinny just might help you restart it... and he won't pull you out and drive away in it either. He won't grab your wallet, cell phone, GPS, etc., and run off with it while leaving you bleeding on the sidewalk.

I don't think it's proper to compare youth gangs who commit random violence to Mafia styled organized crime. Both are problems but with completely different MOs and/or reasons to fear. I'd agree that inner city gang activity has complex and difficult to address roots and there's no easy remedy. I do believe that strong measures to remove the incentive to go into crime as a career is an imperative component of whatever the overall plan should be. I'd love to think there was another way but secular law seems to only know how to threaten and dole out negative consequences. Those mechanisms are already in place but not effectively used.

Collapse -
Mafia started as a protection racket
by James Denison / February 19, 2013 4:07 AM PST

which for the regular payments they provided. Someone do something in their area to one of the "protected" it was being done to them. They took care of business. No more gang.

Collapse -
RE: but secular law seems to only know how to
by JP Bill / February 19, 2013 4:17 AM PST

but secular law seems to only know how to threaten and dole out negative consequences.

And religious law?

Just wait till you die...you're going to get it, you'll be in big trouble then?

Collapse -
Romans chapter 13
by James Denison / February 19, 2013 4:27 AM PST
Religious Law

For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Will you then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and you shall have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to you for good. But if you do that which is evil, be afraid; for he bears not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath on him that does evil. Why you must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay you tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually on this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.
Collapse -
by JP Bill / February 19, 2013 5:42 AM PST
In reply to: Romans chapter 13
Collapse -
You didn't get my drift
by Steven Haninger / February 19, 2013 4:33 AM PST

which was in the opening phrase of that very sentence you keyed on.

Collapse -
in the other thread
by James Denison / February 19, 2013 4:37 AM PST

he couldn't even read what was plainly in the OP. Maybe he had a bad night?

Collapse -
RE: plainly in the OP. Maybe he had a bad night?
by JP Bill / February 19, 2013 5:33 AM PST
In reply to: in the other thread

Perhaps YOU'RE having a worse day?

feminist-baiting ........Backlash Against Feminism

You do realize "baiting" and "backlash" are 2 entirely different things don't you?


to persecute or exasperate with unjust, malicious, or persistent attacks


An antagonistic reaction to a trend, development, or event:

Collapse -
If that's where you wanted me to focus
by JP Bill / February 19, 2013 5:44 AM PST

You should have stopped typing after the opening phrase.

Collapse -
It was a reply to Josh but I'll try to remember
by Steven Haninger / February 19, 2013 5:51 AM PST

that, when responding to you, I need to break up sentences that contain more than one thought.

Collapse -
RE: It was a reply to Josh but I'll try to remember
by JP Bill / February 19, 2013 5:59 AM PST
Collapse -
Yes it was
by Steven Haninger / February 19, 2013 6:21 AM PST

The mention of secular law was in a response to Josh regarding "Vinny and the boys...". Your response title to me was

"RE: but secular law seems to only know how to"

to which you brought up the question of religious law. It was in response to that post that I said you didn't get my drift...that being in my response to Josh. I said nothing about religious law. Go back and check the sequence if you wish. Your title truncated the sentence in question. Go back and look at it if you feel it's worthwhile. I was discussing the removal of incentives to enter criminal life but lamenting that secular law had nothing to offer but negative ones. That was my "drift" and hope it susplains it better.

Collapse -
Some take that viewpoint
by Steven Haninger / February 19, 2013 5:39 AM PST

Jonathan Edwards seemed to have done so but there are positive incentives offered as well. It's not the 70+ virgins, however.

Collapse -
There are some similarities.....
by Josh K / February 19, 2013 4:51 AM PST

......that could subject gang leaders to RICO laws, but overall I agree, they aren't the same thing in terms of how they operate. I used to work in a bar that was owned by "Sicilians" and what you say is true -- they don't engage in random violence, and they'll protect you to the hilt if you live or work near them. In fact mob neighborhoods are among the safest places to live.

Fact is though that the mob is a lot more destructive to society overall, if you look at their sphere of influence vs. that of an average street gang.

Collapse -
I think that being afraid to walk the streets
by Steven Haninger / February 19, 2013 5:23 AM PST

alone or in the dark in one's own neighborhood is about as destructive as it gets.

Collapse -
Very destructive, yes
by Josh K / February 19, 2013 5:46 AM PST

It is very localized destruction though, and people who don't live in a gang neighborhood are very unlikely to be affected. The mob can hold an entire economy in its grip. Try to build something or operate a business in Manhattan without dealing with them. It's impossible. Why are so many things so expensive? Because the mob gets a piece of almost everything. You want groceries? You want them delivered by truck?

That's why Donald Trump is lying when he denies having dealt with them. There's simply no way.

Popular Forums
Computer Help 49,613 discussions
Computer Newbies 10,349 discussions
Laptops 19,436 discussions
Security 30,426 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 20,308 discussions
Windows 10 360 discussions
Phones 15,802 discussions
Windows 7 7,351 discussions
Networking & Wireless 14,641 discussions

CNET Holiday Gift Guide

Looking for great gifts under $100?

Trendy tech gifts don't require a hefty price tag. Choose from these CNET-recommended useful and high-quality gadgets.