How would you reduce gun related crime?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Giga,
You're right. I'm sorry. I certainly didn't intend to tick you off.:neener: :neener:

I meant possessing a firearm while committing a violent crime or burglary.

Violent criminals should be taken off the streets for a good long time. They should be put to work at exhausting physical work so that they are too exhausted to cause a problem in the prison system. Running a tread mill to provide citizens with electricity sounds good to me.

-Jim
 
Challenging question

A comprehensive answer would be quite lengthy and a lot of work, assuming I had the wherewithal to do it competently. I do have some ideas to offer though. Basically it’s a culture shift, accepting guns as necessary rather than believed to be inherently bad. Armed police are not the only good guys.

1. Prevent insurance companies from ultimately controlling the outcome. That is pro-crime. No clauses or riders excluding deadly force for self defense. No declaration of fireams required. No civil suit liabilities. No bogus cancellations after the fact.

2. Sponsor gun ownership locally through the police department, offering safety training, gun orientation, and self defense classes. Each locality should have one or more publicly supported shooting ranges as a standard community service.

3. Reduce addicted desperation. Offer rewards for tips leading to drug dealer convictions, including witness protection programs. Also include incentives for identifying users of particularly addictive and expensive drugs, who would be subject to mandatory intervention programs, publicly funded. After one session AND being of legal age, they're on their own (community parenting).

4. Give disadvantaged cultures something better to which they can aspire than working the system or being a criminal.

5. Invest in law and order. That might include conceding that more citizens should carry guns.

6. Carefully define the principle of a righteous shoot, being careful not to demonize the act of shooting someone, acknowledging that it is sometimes necessary. Protect the innocent, not the guilty. The justification for shooting someone should be straightforward. The shooter should not automatically be in legal trouble at great personal expense. A sympathetic or at least objective jury should not be hard to find, if it goes to court. Minimize civil liability.

7. Someone in the act of committing a felony in a person's home should have no rights if proven guilty. His family should have no recourse either. Homeowner liability and subsequent lawsuits are a travesty. The guy breaking his leg coming through your window is SOL.

8. End the "only shoot to stop" argument. That principle over used is hostile to gun owners in a very high stress situation. Bang, you're dead. No surprise. No tears. No enjoyment either.
 
Cook & Ludwig (two anti-gun criminologists) to their chagrin, showed in 2000 that the Brady background check was not show to reduce crime. Sixteen years earlier, Wright & Rossi (to anti-gun sociologists) were funded by the Carter administration to discover which gun control laws reduced crime. After a few years of research, Wright and Rossi said [close paraphrase], "We could find no gun control law that reduced crime and we can think of none that would..."

Lott and Kleck strongly suggest that the most affective way to reduce crime is to arrest, convict, and confine violent criminals. However, the legal system is also the most expensive way to do this. Lott's thesis is the the second most affective way (and by far the cheapest) is to allow individuals the means to protect themselves, with the best tool, a firearm.

Rick
 
3 steps:

1) 10% tax break for all who buy an M-16/M-4 and complete a program similar to the CMP program, but with an M-16/M-4 and Urban Carbine type classes. HEAVY focus on safety and background observation. This would be a week long course at the least, not some sissy 1hour affair. Yearly re-quals required.

2) I furthur like the 10% off for armed patrons at retail outlets. ONLY applies to:

a) Persons who have completed and obtained a good score in a similar in-depth CCW shoot-no-shoot type course, with kill-house. Similar to the defensive aspect of SWAT training.

b) HOLSTERED weapons, and only if that weapon remains holstered.

3) HUGE penalties for crime, and enhancements for crimes involving firearms. Stick up a 7-11, go to jail for life. Shoot at someone, go to jail for life/execution. Eliminate parole.


The premise: Self-reliant individuals are less of a burden on the state, so let's treat them in kind.

Give law-abiding as much freedom as humanly possible, and punish law-breakers with ferocious vigor.


If everyone on the block had a select-fire rifle and a holstered handgun, crime of all sorts wouldn't just go down, it would fall to zero.
 
Lots of interesting ideas in this thread but... I belive AZRickD is hitting the nail on the head. I too agree that the idea of trying to satisfy the antis has no place in dealing with crime.

Laws regulating tools only create more problems.
 
As previously stated, CCW expand and encourage it's use. MAD worked in the the cold war and it can work in the crime war. It's simple logic and the will to survive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top