Use a firearm during a crime gets you dead.

[sonofeugene]

I was emailing a couple of friends of mine and I told them this:

‘The laws against the use of weapons being used in crimes should be strengthened. People who use any weapon, whether a revolver, a semi automatic pistol or rifle, or any other firearm in the commission of a crime, even if they don?t fire it, should be found guilty and put immediately to death. And it should be a long, drawn out death. And it should be broadcast for all to see. No drawn out appeals. If you did the crime, you pay the price.’

So I?m wondering whether a law like this could ever get passed. And I also wonder how effective it might be.

Banning any firearm would certainly not work.

[Angrysnarf]

Once upon there was a very good 10 20 life law in CA. It worked really well.

[CessnaDriver]

No, no law like that could ever get passed, anywhere in the USA.

[Quiet]

Under CA laws...

Using a firearm in the commission of a crime is a sentence enhancer.
^It adds 3-10 years depending on what the crime was and what kind of firearm was used.

However, in the current day and age, this is often plea bargained away or not sought after by the DA's Office due to progressive thinking on this type of crime control being racist.

[StuckInTheP.R.O.Ca]

I was emailing a couple of friends of mine and I told them this:

?The laws against the use of weapons being used in crimes should be strengthened. People who use any weapon, whether a revolver, a semi automatic pistol or rifle, or any other firearm in the commission of a crime, even if they don?t fire it, should be found guilty and put immediately to death. And it should be a long, drawn out death. And it should be broadcast for all to see. No drawn out appeals. If you did the crime, you pay the price.?

So I?m wondering whether a law like this could ever get passed. And I also wonder how effective it might be.

Banning any firearm would certainly not work.

They dont intend for it to "work" . Gun control has nothing to do with crime. It's all about control.

Soros DA's would love a law like this. There would be plenty of opportunities for this to be used and abused against political enemies. Like conservative gun owners trying to defend themselves . Of course democrat carreer criminal constituents would not be charged in the first place. Remember they went after Kyle Rittenhouse in a clear cut case of self defense. All it takes is for 12 handpicked leftards to come to a consensus and your done. Chicago has some tough gun laws. But guess what. They rarely use them against actual criminals. Do you think a brandishing conviction should should also get the death penalty. There have been plenty of CCW holders charged wrongfully for brandishing. Be careful for what you wish for.

[MajorSideburns]

The problem is not that we don't have enough laws. The problem is that current laws are not enforced on purpose because there is a broader agenda at play to unravel the society.

[TKM]

A law like that would only be used against a homeowner who broke the law of self defense against a night school law student group who got lost on the way home from the library.

And you know it.

[Epaphroditus]

We need to decouple conviction rates from justice and disincentivize plea bargaining. Lazy prosecutors need to step up and do their jobs.

In fact, a strong arguement could be made that plea bargains are just conspiracy after the fact.

Plea bargains and entrapment schemes seem to be SOP these days but it's what the gamers call "stat padding" - it leads to empty suits and a general degradation.

We must insist public servants strive for excellence.

[ohsmily]

I was emailing a couple of friends of mine and I told them this:

?The laws against the use of weapons being used in crimes should be strengthened. People who use any weapon, whether a revolver, a semi automatic pistol or rifle, or any other firearm in the commission of a crime, even if they don?t fire it, should be found guilty and put immediately to death. And it should be a long, drawn out death. And it should be broadcast for all to see. No drawn out appeals. If you did the crime, you pay the price.?

So I?m wondering whether a law like this could ever get passed. And I also wonder how effective it might be.

Banning any firearm would certainly not work.

Great idea! Death and torture for possession of an unregistered assault weapon (PC 30605) while transporting an unregistered assault weapon (PC 30600) . Or how about death and torture for possession of a high capacity magazine (PC 32310(c)) while possessing a concealed weapon (without a permit) (PC 25400) Wow, you should be in charge!

They would love you in North Korea, Iran, and every other ****hole country with stone age laws where the government rules with an iron fist. Here, the Constitution protects us from kooks who would seek to institute barbaric laws involving torture and public spectacle of executions.

What's your next idea? Coliseum fights to the death for people the government decides are "undesirable"? All us "domestic terrorists" who oppose the current administration and own guns should fight lions and each other to death for the glory of the republic!

FEAR YOUR GOVERNMENT. Dont give it the power to execute anyone. Particularly under the hare-brained scheme you proposed. You might be next.

[Usmc0844spare]

FEAR YOUR GOVERNMENT. Dont give it the power to execute anyone.

While I agree that OPs idea is about as sophisticated as my 11 year old's understanding of geopolitics, we ABSOLUTELY need the death penalty for certain crimes.

[ohsmily]

Ohsmily your response is just as utterly ridiculous as the ops posting. He's not talking about some law abiding dude who's at the gun range with a 30 round magazine, perhaps you missed the part where he's talking about a (criminal using a firearm while committing a crime.)

We must do it to protect the public...the children! These weapons of war are a scourge and anyone who owns them axiomatically is a blood thirsty domestic terrorist. DEATH! TORTURE! SHAME!

And my post described two instances of using a gun while committing another crime.

[ohsmily]

The fact that you don't see a difference between your examples of committing a crime and what op is talking about is almost comical. He's referring to somebody who uses a gun in a criminal act such as robbery, assault against another person, etc. The gun in ops posting is a tool being used for intimidation against another person or worse. You're talking about a law abiding citizen who's possessing a 30-round magazine. Big difference Don't you think?

You read what you want into it. He proposed a law and wrote what it should punish. Unintended consequences and all that. People like him never see that coming or the slippery slope. You're as silly as he is.

In all honesty, the OP's post was so ridiculous and childish, I shouldn't have bothered responding. But I couldn't resist and took the bait.

[BigPimping]

The idea is perfect. Sadly, I think the only time it would ever be actually put into use is if a homeowner used a firearm against an armed intruder.

[Jimi Jah]

We have had federal gun use enhancements for decades.

They are very rarely used. Sort of like immigration laws.

[LAKA90034]

I was emailing a couple of friends of mine and I told them this:

?should be found guilty and put immediately to death. And it should be a long, drawn out death. And it should be broadcast for all to see. No drawn out appeals. If you did the crime, you pay the price.?

So I?m wondering whether a law like this could ever get passed. And I also wonder how effective it might be.

Banning any firearm would certainly not work.

Not without a Constitutional Amendment (thankfully).

...and ohsmily's expamples aren't at all ridiculous. Legislators misapply laws all the time to suit their political whims/aspirations....shoot, I'd wager sometimes just to see if they can get away with it.