Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

jfjacobc t1_j9ximb7 wrote

Reply to comment by [deleted] in Fort Worth councilman's 82-year-old mother shot through door of her home by infinitum3d

I mean, yeah, but that's for people convicted of a felony already, and what I'm describing, ideally, wouldn't be a felony.

I believe fines are only punishment for poor people, so that's why I say jail time minimum. That way, even millionaires who illegally acquire a firearm without the proper training would have a consequence.

The purpose of that proposed system isn't to punish but to promote safe, responsible ownership of the greatest force-equalizer we have.

0

onikaizoku11 t1_j9xwrvj wrote

Your heart is in the right place, but you are only adding another layer to a problem. Not solving it. You only get the jail time after a conviction, which comes after a trial, a trial that the wealthy can circumvent for years if not indefinitely in a state like Texas.

I don't profer a solution here, to be clear and honest, but your proposed solution makes stuff worse.

1

faciepalm t1_j9y6ceg wrote

Hardly makes things any worse. It's pretty easy to have a gun license on you at all times while you have a gun, just like your phone or actual license. Shifting the point of legality to no one can unless they have a license from everyone can except felons means that everybody who is illegally using guns will have to be more careful, because they know that just having one gives a reason to check ID.

1

onikaizoku11 t1_j9y9lcw wrote

>I believe fines are only punishment for poor people, so that's why I say jail time minimum. That way, even millionaires who illegally acquire a firearm without the proper training would have a consequence.

Is what I was really pointing at in that comment.

Why are fines mostly only bad for the poorer of us? Because they don't have the same resources. A say $500 fine, just throwing out a realistic figure, is less than a pittance for a wealthy individual, that is food money for half the month for financially struggling people.

Now throw mandatory jail time into the mix, same variables. Rich person can get representation and fight legally much easier than a poor person. Hell, in the case of the affluent, them not even being officially charged for lengthy periods of time after offenses is a real consideration.

For reference, I have lived in a part of Georgia where there is still a law on the books that says every home is required to have a firearm. Throw in the newish law pretty much getting rid of the need for permits of any kind to carry or own here.... Who is hurt more before that commentor's idea? After? The poor guy only now he has jailtime on his record.

2

faciepalm t1_j9ytw34 wrote

I agree with you, except for that example at the end. It shouldn't be too difficult for someone to prove that they are competent and understand the risks behind owning and using a gun to provide themselves with a license, especially if the cost of doing so was waived for the first year or so that it was going to be announced.

Every household being required to own a gun sounds straight out of a state trying to prepare its population for a civil war, huh? I'm not in the US and accustomed to the laws at all, but it is interesting how many carry overs probably exist from so long ago

0