Ohioans For Concealed Carry Discussion Forums

Ohio AG backs tougher prison terms for gun crimes

Carr, the Floor Walker, tends to support enhanced penalties for the criminal underclass when they ply their trade, but would first like to see the proposal's final language.

http://www.10tv.com/content/stories/ape ... -ohio.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm just thankful the linked article didn't include any photos of our dweebish little OAG posing with police officers, it makes me lose my appetite for days every time I see pictures like those. Just once I'd like to see Mikey take point with an entry team, kicking down the door to serve a felony warrant or the like. And not as part of some staged event, either.

B - if he holds his annual ice cream festival this summer, please consider attending with me...

Tweed Ring wrote:Ohio AG backs tougher prison terms for gun crimes

Carr, the Floor Walker, tends to support enhanced penalties for the criminal underclass when they ply their trade, but would first like to see the proposal's final language.

It can be found here. It has already been debated, quiet vehemently, in the forum of "another organization." While it is not perfect, I have ceased arguing with one person who seems to perceive it as apocalyptic.

The Ohio bill, aimed at reducing violent gun crimes, would impose longer prison sentences for certain repeat offenders convicted of violent crimes involving a firearm.

I tend to disagree with this general premise. Criminals by definition do not follow the law and I doubt that a repeat violent offender who has already made the choice to violate lots of other laws would in any way be deterred by a longer prison sentence. I think it would be more honest to say this law is intended to remove career violent criminals from interacting with society for a longer period of time. It may prevent an individual from further crimes during incarceration but I don't believe that it will in any way prevent a violent criminal from going back to his old ways once/if he is released nor deter others from taking up a new career if they are already predisposed to it.

I guess it all goes to the basic philosophy on the purpose of the CJ system (rehab, incapacitation, retribution etc.)

My question is, why are firearms being singled out here? Are crimes committed with firearms somehow more heinous than any other violent crime?

"DeWine said fewer than 1 percent of Ohioans commit the majority of violent crimes in the state."

Probably lots of recidivists in that number. My math ability is wretched, but I think the number is approximately 115,900. That's a lot of violent felons. Ohio has beds for approximately 54K with creative housing.

My Father's House has many windows...all of them have bars...

Klingon00 wrote:

The Ohio bill, aimed at reducing violent gun crimes, would impose longer prison sentences for certain repeat offenders convicted of violent crimes involving a firearm.

I tend to disagree with this general premise. Criminals by definition do not follow the law and I doubt that a repeat violent offender who has already made the choice to violate lots of other laws would in any way be deterred by a longer prison sentence. I think it would be more honest to say this law is intended to remove career violent criminals from interacting with society for a longer period of time. It may prevent an individual from further crimes during incarceration but I don't believe that it will in any way prevent a violent criminal from going back to his old ways once/if he is released nor deter others from taking up a new career if they are already predisposed to it.

I guess it all goes to the basic philosophy on the purpose of the CJ system (rehab, incapacitation, retribution etc.)

A longer sentence may or may not deter our criminal underclass. It does tend to keep them off the street, off my property, off my back, out of my wallet, etc. for a longer period of time.

I sometimes wonder if at some point certain criminals shouldn't be classified as unsalvageable and removed more... permanently from the population, rather than trying to come up with more warm beds and meals with a revolving door.

If the purpose of incarceration is to rehabilitate, then that should be the goal and if a person deemed rehabilitated, released with all the rights of a free man. If they can't be rehabilitated, isn't it criminal to set them loose on society?

But I guess my real question is, why are firearms being singled out here? Are crimes committed with firearms somehow more heinous than any other violent crime?

Klingon00 wrote:I sometimes wonder if at some point certain criminals shouldn't be classified as unsalvageable and removed more... permanently from the population, rather than trying to come up with more warm beds and meals with a revolving door.

If the purpose of incarceration is to rehabilitate, then that should be the goal and if a person deemed rehabilitated, released with all the rights of a free man. If they can't be rehabilitated, isn't it criminal to set them loose on society?

But I guess my real question is, why are firearms being singled out here? Are crimes committed with firearms somehow more heinous than any other violent crime?

The purpose/mission is rehabilitation.

However, in a system with 38k beds, and with a projected population of 53,484 inmates, or 139 percent above what the prison system was designed to accommodate, by 2019, the reality is warehousing.

So, I support keeping the violent criminals off the street as long as possible.

Firearms seem to be the choice of violent felons would be my guess.

Doesn't keep them out of your wallet. Takes money to house them. That money comes from government. Government takes that money from you as taxes. So they are still getting in your wallet... just indirectly. Or directly, depending on how you view things.

Tweed Ring wrote:A longer sentence may or may not deter our criminal underclass. It does tend to keep them off the street, off my property, off my back, out of my wallet, etc. for a longer period of time.

WY_Not wrote:Doesn't keep them out of your wallet. Takes money to house them. That money comes from government. Government takes that money from you as taxes. So they are still getting in your wallet... just indirectly. Or directly, depending on how you view things.

Tweed Ring wrote:A longer sentence may or may not deter our criminal underclass. It does tend to keep them off the street, off my property, off my back, out of my wallet, etc. for a longer period of time.

Keeps the violent ones from taking my wallet by force, if they remain behind the fences...

I'm willing to pay taxes to buy the obligatory three hots, a cot, and help spring for all the accessories mandated by the do-gooders and the various courts which believe they are the recognized experts in modern penology.

Tweed Ring wrote:Firearms seem to be the choice of violent felons would be my guess.

Not according to the FBI crime statistics. 'Weapon other' and 'hands/feet' top the list by a wide margin for weapons used in violent crimes. Knives come in close behind firearms and nearly equal in numbers.

But of course we know that firearms can't be the weapon of choice because it is illegal for a violent felon to even possess a firearm.

I think it would be more honest to say this law is intended to remove career violent criminals from interacting with society for a longer period of time.

I think you nailed it.

While I am generally not a fan of minimum sentencing because it takes away the elected judge's prerogative the reality is that too many judges have shown themselves to be horribly lenient on those who don't deserve it. They abused their discretion and this is reaping what they have sown.

Speaking of which, as a law abiding gun owner I am angered more than usual when a criminal uses one of my favorite tools of self-defense in the commission of a crime. I don't like seeing our rights abused. Certainly, I am most concerned about government infringement of our rights and what leverage such abuses can give the statist busy bodies.

Speaking of which, statistics can be handy things. As pointed out, guns are not the primary tools of criminals. Furthermore, gun owners (and even more so the subset that have CHLs) are more law-abiding than the average citizen. There are lots of good statistics available to our side and hopefully more will be forthcoming. Such tools aid in our fight to protect our rights and roll back previous infringements.

Klingon00 wrote:

Tweed Ring wrote:Firearms seem to be the choice of violent felons would be my guess.

Not according to the FBI crime statistics. 'Weapon other' and 'hands/feet' top the list by a wide margin for weapons used in violent crimes.

First degree misdemeanor Assault convictions are consider violent crimes under FBI stats, and they far outnumber the violent felonies. Exclude those numbers, and the picture changes drastically.

Morne wrote:

I think it would be more honest to say this law is intended to remove career violent criminals from interacting with society for a longer period of time.

I think you nailed it.

While I am generally not a fan of minimum sentencing because it takes away the elected judge's prerogative the reality is that too many judges have shown themselves to be horribly lenient on those who don't deserve it. They abused their discretion and this is reaping what they have sown.

Indeed. Folks talk too much about deterrence. Physical violence tends to be impulsive, so the only real deterrent is a risk of immediate retaliation. Restraint and collective retribution are also valid purposes for punishment by a public entity. That is what extended prison sentences are all about.