• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Burress cops a plea. Two years.

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: a123456
I could be wrong, but I don't think Plax carrying a gun into a nightclub is illegal. It's just that he didn't have the proper license for it. The fact that it went off accidentally kind of underscores that he's probably not a responsible gun owner.

Strictly speaking, this is true. But it's impossible to obtain that licensing from the state, so it's effectively illegal.
 
Originally posted by: Blackjack200
Originally posted by: a123456
I could be wrong, but I don't think Plax carrying a gun into a nightclub is illegal. It's just that he didn't have the proper license for it. The fact that it went off accidentally kind of underscores that he's probably not a responsible gun owner.

Strictly speaking, this is true. But it's impossible to obtain that licensing from the state, so it's effectively illegal.

The law is pointless really it only hurts legal gun owners. Someone who illegaly acquired a weapon isn't going to care where he carries it. In this case burress legally purchased registered and was licensed to carry in about half the US states. We put legal gun owner in jail while effectively doing nothing to prevent illegal gun ownership and carrying.
 
Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
Originally posted by: Blackjack200
Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Notice how the amendment makes no distinctions about arms; whether they are in your hand, on your hip, in your pocket, are knives, guns, cannons, or nukes.

"...but that's a 200 year old document, wah wah wah"

Well REGULATED milita. I love how the gun nuts always gloss over that. Not being able to carry your gun in through crowded streets, into dark nightclubs, preschools, banks, courts, etc. etc. is part of those regulation.

What well regulated milita is Plaxico Burress part of? I wasn't aware...

you didn't answer why does it matter where you are carrying a gun? Are guns more or less effective in their intended use in certain environment vs. others?

More or Less effective? I would say that they are more dangerous in some situations. Also, I personally prefer to be in places that guns aren't allowed, when laws like this are enforced it means that I can go pretty much anywhere in NY and not have to worry that some loony is strapping.
 
He discharged a gun in a crowded nightclub. That he only injured himself is the bright side. Firing weapons irresponsibly within city limits (and in a crowded nightclub no less) deserves some punishment in my opinion. 404 gun laws run amuck not found. If he hurt someone else I'd say he'd deserve 5-10 years. 2 1/2 seems reasonable to me.
 
Originally posted by: Blackjack200
Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
Originally posted by: Blackjack200
Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Notice how the amendment makes no distinctions about arms; whether they are in your hand, on your hip, in your pocket, are knives, guns, cannons, or nukes.

"...but that's a 200 year old document, wah wah wah"

Well REGULATED milita. I love how the gun nuts always gloss over that. Not being able to carry your gun in through crowded streets, into dark nightclubs, preschools, banks, courts, etc. etc. is part of those regulation.

What well regulated milita is Plaxico Burress part of? I wasn't aware...

you didn't answer why does it matter where you are carrying a gun? Are guns more or less effective in their intended use in certain environment vs. others?

More or Less effective? I would say that they are more dangerous in some situations. Also, I personally prefer to be in places that guns aren't allowed, when laws like this are enforced it means that I can go pretty much anywhere in NY and not have to worry that some loony is strapping.

What? u joking?
 
Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
Originally posted by: Blackjack200
Originally posted by: a123456
I could be wrong, but I don't think Plax carrying a gun into a nightclub is illegal. It's just that he didn't have the proper license for it. The fact that it went off accidentally kind of underscores that he's probably not a responsible gun owner.

Strictly speaking, this is true. But it's impossible to obtain that licensing from the state, so it's effectively illegal.

The law is pointless really it only hurts legal gun owners. Someone who illegaly acquired a weapon isn't going to care where he carries it. In this case burress legally purchased registered and was licensed to carry in about half the US states. We put legal gun owner in jail while effectively doing nothing to prevent illegal gun ownership and carrying.

? He carried a concealed weapon into an area where people have a reasonable expectation that others are not armed. He discharged his weapon putting everyone in the club at risk. I'd say that law did exactly what it was supposed to.
 
Originally posted by: AyashiKaibutsu
He discharged a gun in a crowded nightclub. That he only injured himself is the bright side. Firing weapons irresponsibly within city limits (and in a crowded nightclub no less) deserves some punishment in my opinion. 404 gun laws run amuck not found. If he hurt someone else I'd say he'd deserve 5-10 years. 2 1/2 seems reasonable to me.

Agree 100%. I don't get why this is even a debate or surprising. Burress broke some of NY's very stringent gun laws and should pay. Just like anyone else stupid enough to do that.

I find it amazing that Burress was supposedly licensed to carry in FL. He's supposedly passed the tests and knows how to handle and carry a gun. Yet he doesn't know the basic state-by-state rules, doesn't know how to properly carry it, and doesn't know how to properly handle it. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside thinking about how many dumbfuck licensed carriers there are out there.
 
Originally posted by: AyashiKaibutsu
He discharged a gun in a crowded nightclub. That he only injured himself is the bright side. Firing weapons irresponsibly within city limits (and in a crowded nightclub no less) deserves some punishment in my opinion. 404 gun laws run amuck not found. If he hurt someone else I'd say he'd deserve 5-10 years. 2 1/2 seems reasonable to me.

he didn't hurt someone though(there are already laws in place for hurting people). he was wreckless yes. But no one was hurt. 90 days suspended after 45 and 300 hours community service. he would learn his lesson.

 
Originally posted by: Blackjack200
Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
Originally posted by: Blackjack200
Originally posted by: a123456
I could be wrong, but I don't think Plax carrying a gun into a nightclub is illegal. It's just that he didn't have the proper license for it. The fact that it went off accidentally kind of underscores that he's probably not a responsible gun owner.

Strictly speaking, this is true. But it's impossible to obtain that licensing from the state, so it's effectively illegal.

The law is pointless really it only hurts legal gun owners. Someone who illegaly acquired a weapon isn't going to care where he carries it. In this case burress legally purchased registered and was licensed to carry in about half the US states. We put legal gun owner in jail while effectively doing nothing to prevent illegal gun ownership and carrying.

? He carried a concealed weapon into an area where people have a reasonable expectation that others are not armed. He discharged his weapon putting everyone in the club at risk. I'd say that law did exactly what it was supposed to.

? The law is intended to stop people from carrying in public. Yes, clearly it was effective...😕
 
Originally posted by: Blackjack200
Originally posted by: JD50


? The law is intended to stop people from carrying in public. Yes, clearly it was effective...😕

And it does, just not Burress. That's why he's in jail.

You said that the law did exactly what it was supposed to do, now you're saying that it didn't do what it was supposed to do?

Also, you really shouldn't be worrying about the people that carry legally, they aren't the ones committing the crimes.
 
Not to say that all laws are good and should be there, but the above isn't really a valid argument. Otherwise, you could say, murders happen every day even though there are laws against murder. So why have laws against murder at all? If you don't like murder, pick another law. Many laws that we have get broken all the time even though it's illegal.
 
I'm glad everything worked out for Plexiglass. Maybe in a few years he can become a defense attorney. He knows how to get 2 year plea deals. Plexiglass method for plea deals: Start with a 3 month deal and turn it into a 2 year plea deal.

Hindsight is 20/20
 
Originally posted by: a123456
Not to say that all laws are good and should be there, but the above isn't really a valid argument. Otherwise, you could say, murders happen every day even though there are laws against murder. So why have laws against murder at all? If you don't like murder, pick another law. Many laws that we have get broken all the time even though it's illegal.

murder vs. a victimless crime........hmmmmm no. I'm not arguing he didn't break the law. T The law he broke if any would have to be wreckless endangerment when he discharged the firearm in a club.. Not carrying a weapon. The punishment doesn't fit the crime in this case.
 
Victimless doesn't mean it's not a crime. Otherwise, I could shoot at Obama and miss by an inch and get 90 days? I think suicide is a crime too, at least if you fail to succeed. 🙂

Fair enough about disagreeing with the law. But the law is there and in place now. Until it gets repealed or changed, the punishment is what it should be. Not knowing the law isn't really a good excuse for breaking it. 90 days seems kind of lenient for reckless endangerment but I'm not a law expert by any means. Perhaps 2 years is too harsh. I'm not sure I could put a solid number on it.
 
I'm sorry, let me clarify. These gun laws are put in place with the intention of stopping crime, which they do not do.
 
Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
Originally posted by: a123456
Not to say that all laws are good and should be there, but the above isn't really a valid argument. Otherwise, you could say, murders happen every day even though there are laws against murder. So why have laws against murder at all? If you don't like murder, pick another law. Many laws that we have get broken all the time even though it's illegal.

murder vs. a victimless crime........hmmmmm no. I'm not arguing he didn't break the law. T The law he broke if any would have to be wreckless endangerment when he discharged the firearm in a club.. Not carrying a weapon. The punishment doesn't fit the crime in this case.

Then drunk driving is also a victimless crime. You may perceive it as victimless, but it's an offense against society and no less of a crime than one where the vicitm is more obvious.
 
Originally posted by: JD50
I'm sorry, let me clarify. These gun laws are put in place with the intention of stopping crime, which they do not do.

Do we have a control case where there are no gun laws where the crime rate with guns is lower?
 
Originally posted by: a123456
Victimless doesn't mean it's not a crime. Otherwise, I could shoot at Obama and miss by an inch and get 90 days? I think suicide is a crime too, at least if you fail to succeed. 🙂

Fair enough about disagreeing with the law. But the law is there and in place now. Until it gets repealed or changed, the punishment is what it should be. Not knowing the law isn't really a good excuse for breaking it. 90 days seems kind of lenient for reckless endangerment but I'm not a law expert by any means. Perhaps 2 years is too harsh. I'm not sure I could put a solid number on it.

Do you think his debt to society is better paid behind bars or doing community service? Judging by his famous status I think he would do a world of good outside of prison rather in prison.
 
Originally posted by: JD50
I'm sorry, let me clarify. These gun laws are put in place with the intention of stopping crime, which they do not do.

And what do you propose? Do we get rid of all gun laws? Automatic weapons carried at any age by any person in any place at any time?

My point is that the government will clearly have to draw the line somewhere. If you don't believe in some form of gun control you are an extremist.
 
Originally posted by: Blackjack200
Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
Originally posted by: a123456
Not to say that all laws are good and should be there, but the above isn't really a valid argument. Otherwise, you could say, murders happen every day even though there are laws against murder. So why have laws against murder at all? If you don't like murder, pick another law. Many laws that we have get broken all the time even though it's illegal.

murder vs. a victimless crime........hmmmmm no. I'm not arguing he didn't break the law. T The law he broke if any would have to be wreckless endangerment when he discharged the firearm in a club.. Not carrying a weapon. The punishment doesn't fit the crime in this case.

Then drunk driving is also a victimless crime. You may perceive it as victimless, but it's an offense against society and no less of a crime than one where the vicitm is more obvious.

People driving drunk don't intend to hurt others. plax didn't intend on hurting anyone. Drunk drivers dont goto jail for 2 years unless they are repeat offenders.
 
Back
Top