C. I think firearms in regards to homicide is very simple whereas the subject of suicide is very complicated. There are just to many unknowns with suicide. If you want to lower the homicide rate then get the guns out of criminals hands and into law abiding citizens hands. In addition to that take other precautions in making your home safe, etc. etc.
Here I disagree, and here's why:
During WWI, German submarines were giving us fits. Will Rogers was at a cocktail party and talking to an admiral. "Admiral, I know how to deal with the German submarines."
"How, Will?"
"Simple. Boil the ocean."
"How the pluperfect Hell do we do that?!?"
"Admiral, I've given you the answer, but you're going to have to work out the details for yourself."
Getting the guns out of criminals hands is a "Boil the Ocean" approach. We should step back and take a breath and ask, "What are we trying to do?" WHY do we want to "get the guns out of criminal hands?"
Well, hmmm . . . to reduce violent crime? Okay, let's focus on THAT, without adopting a solution before we even tackle the problem;
VIOLENT CRIME CONTROL
The Right to Bear Arms is a Civil Right. It is as much a civil right as the right to vote or the right to trial by jury. Attempts to infringe on this right damage ALL our rights, since the methods used to undermine the 2nd Amendment can be used against all other Amendments.
Further, the bearing of arms by responsible citizens is not the problem – in fact, in state after state, liberalized concealed carry laws have resulted in reduced violent crime. The right to bear arms is therefore a solution, not a problem.
That said, we must recognize that some people will use weapons for criminal purposes. This paper sets forth a concept for reasonable
violent crime control, based on three principles:
·
Targeting. The purpose of crime control is to prevent violence. Violent acts are committed by only a small fraction of the population. The biggest payoff therefore comes in targeting anti-violence legislation on those who commit violent acts, not on applying broad-brush restrictions to everyone.
·
Incapacitation. Experience has shown that incapacitation (through incarceration) reduces the number of crimes committed by violent felons over their criminal careers.
·
Enforcement. Many attempts at controlling violence have failed in the past due to lack of enforcement. There are many reasons for this, from simple non-feasance of officials to structural defects that reward non-enforcement.
We
target the violent criminal through two laws;
1. Possession of a firearm in the commission of a violent crime.
2. Possession of a firearm by a previously convicted violent criminal
We must carefully word these laws to ensure we don’t target the wrong people – we’re not after kids who hunt squirrels out of season. We do this by making the gun crime dependent on another crime – a violent crime, such as murder, armed robbery, rape, and so on.
We
incapacitate the violent criminal through mandatory sentencing. Although politically incorrect, mandatory sentencing is proven to work in incapacitating criminals. In this case the sentence is 10 years, mandatory, and consecutive with any other sentence. And additional 10 years, mandatory, and consecutive, is added for each subsequent offense.
A holdup of a local 7-11, for example, would net the criminal 5 years on the state, and he would typically serve two. But before being released, he would serve an additional 10 years for using a firearm in a violent crime.
If he did it again after release, this time he would get 20 years for use of a firearm in a violent crime, second offense, and 10 years for possession of a firearm by a previously-convicted violent criminal, for a total of 30 years. A third stickup would net fifty years.
We get
enforcement by reserving prosecution of these crimes to a specialized office in the Justice Department. They would prosecute ONLY these two crimes. If they fail to prosecute, they go out of business. If they prosecute vigorously, they will build up a backlog of work, and according to the natural law that governs bureaucracies, will get more funding, more personnel, and more promotions.
They cannot plea bargain away anything – because they have no jurisdiction over any other crimes and nothing to gain from a plea bargain. They cannot be persuaded not to prosecute, because that would go against their interests.
They can be counted on to be vigilant of crimes committed in the various states, because state prosecution for the basic crime will facilitate federal prosecution of the firearms charges.
And finally, they can be given jurisdiction over one other crime – accessory to the first two crimes – so they can prosecute local officials who, knowing of crimes that fall under their jurisdiction, fail to inform them. Any police officer or prosecuting attorney who knows of, or who reasonably
should know of a violation of these two laws, and who fails to charge the suspect, or forward charges for prosecution, shall receive the same penalty as the criminal.
