To be honest I can’t decide if this is from a liberal gun-grabbing kook or a tough-on-crime right-winger. Given the ignorance displayed, I’m going to go with liberal lunatic. I found this guy who thinks it would be a good idea to chop off the fingers of anyone convicted of a gun crime as a way to reduce “gun violence.” Yup, this is a real thing that somebody thought up and decided to share with the world.
A person named Mike Pfrang wrote this in a letter to the editor of The Cap Times:
Dear Editor: I think I have a solution to the problem of gun violence, although it’s probably more common in fundamentalist Muslim countries. When someone is convicted of a crime involving firearms, surgically remove the offender’s trigger finger. This punishment, if known in advance, would be essentially self-inflicted by the offender, so there would be no social justice or other moral issues. The punishment, although severe, and mildly disabling, is much less so than most gunshot wounds, and so seems appropriate to the crime.
There are certainly many issues with this dude’s plan, but the biggest one is the 8th Amendment to the US Constitution, which bans “cruel and unusual punishment.” Amputating digits for any non-medical reason is most definitely cruel and unusual. Acceptable punishment in civilized societies doesn’t involve horribly disfiguring people.
Then there is the issue of innocence. What if a gun offender’s conviction is overturned, but his or her finger has already been chopped off? Is the government going to keep the severed fingers on ice just in case they need to be reattached? is this something that is even possible over a certain matter of time? I know if they get it back on right away it’s possible, though the finger won’t be the same, but what about after 6 months?
Also, many people live in states that have very restrictive gun control laws and otherwise law-abiding people are often arrested for gun crimes that only involve owning a firearm that is completely legal in other places. Would it be fair to hack off a digit of a person because they had an illegal “assault weapon” in California while a person with the exact same gun in Nevada would get to keep all fingers?
If you are like me, one of the first things you noticed wrong about this silly plan is that if someone had their index finger removed, he or she could still fire a gun with the middle finger. Fear not, Mike Pfrang covers this:
Since it impairs or prevents the future use of a firearm, it also addresses the problem of recidivism. Offenders who learn to use a firearm without the operative digit would sacrifice additional ones for future offenses.
Wouldn’t it make more sense to just put repeat offenders behind bars for a very long time, and also stop prosecutors from plea bargaining away the gun charges like they do too often?
Finally, we get this bit of wisdom:
I can’t imagine even the NRA opposing a gun control effort that applies only to felons convicted of firearm crimes.
Really? He can’t imagine that the country’s biggest civil rights organization would have a problem with the government lopping off the fingers of gun owners? Yeah, I’m convinced now, this guy is a total liberal. This is kind of like feminists who want to chop off accused rapist’s dicks, only he wants to sever gun owner’s fingers. That is a constantly liberal line of thought.
I don’t really know what else to say here other than Mike Pfrang is out of his pfrucking mind.