Okay, so we know gun control won't work . . .

[Mark Tyson]

Most of us here in the USA agree that gun control is a bandaid on a sucking chest wound. But the fact remains that there are a lot of criminals out there, and a lot of them use guns. My question is: so what are we to do about violent crime? If we merely continue screaming: "You can't take my guns! We have rights!" we will sound incredibly selfish. Not that a little selfishness isn't a bad thing - but that's another subject.

The RKBA groups have to have some prescription for dealing with the USA's terrible violent crime rate. These ideas have to preserve our freedom - and not just guns either, but all our civil liberties. Let's hear some ideas.

More CCW? More police and prisons? Alternatives to the drug war? Let's hear 'em.

 

[TallPine]

what are we to do about violent crime?

#1: Shoot back

 

[Augustwest]

Stress that we're each responsible for our own safety and well-being, so anybody who wants to be safe and well should equip himself to follow TallPine's suggestion.

 

[Partisan Ranger]

Allow people in criminal havens (AKA 'gun free zones') to walk the streets armed to the teeth. Crime will drop like a rock.

I always chuckle at the handwringing in the DC media about 'gang violence,' 'youth violence,' every day 'gun violence.' It seems to get worse and worse, they moan. What to do?

Easy. Let a law-abiding person pack heat. Crime will go bye bye fast. But the bliss ninneys in DC would never consider such a thing. Thus they live in a crime infested hellhole.

No crime problem to speak of out here in the Valley 80 miles west of DC. Wonder why? Couldn't have something to do with VA's lax gun laws? Nah.

 

[El Tejon]

In doing what I do, I am convinced that the only way to make a lasting impression is to affect a change of the culture. Destroy the Welfare State and the symptom of crime goes with it.

I believe increased prison terms, prosecutions would help short-term only.

 

[mantispid]

Another thing to do is eliminate the breeding grounds for interpersonal crime. I.e., eliminate black markets... you do that by legalizing drugs, prostitution, gun running, etc.

Also, you eliminate anticompetitive laws such as licensing, certain regulations on business, etc.

Essentially, you make it so being legit is more profitable than using force against others.

Oh, I suppose that also means you'll need to strip most of our government of its power, so special interests don't have any reason to influence elections, and charlatans don't get into office.

And, of course, shooting back at the criminals that still manage to form after all this is done (though their numbers will be much much reduced).

 

[Graystar]

My question is: so what are we to do about violent crime?

The National Crime Victimization Survey, an annual survey performed by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, demonstrates year after year that the best way to avoid injury in a violent attack is to fight back with a gun. It is even better than complying with an attacker.

So, statistically speaking, the best solution to violent crime is to arm everyone. That will reduce the number of injuries sustained by victims of violent crime.

 

[Smurfslayer]

not exactly...

"Most of us here in the USA agree that gun control is a bandaid on a sucking chest wound. But the fact remains that there are a lot of criminals out there, and a lot of them use guns. "

Actually, most of us here in the USA don't agree on this. While the audience here certainly does agree, we are but a small minority of gun owners in general, and not even an accurate cross section of society.

<reminder> more people voted for Gore !
That's just downright scary. Scarier even is how deep the beliefs are among the freedom hating left of the absolute correctness of their convictions...

There's no "one right answer" here. Sure, we can arm citizens to the teeth, but not everyone is willing, or sufficiently trained to be able to use the type of tools needed. We can continue to throw "Hail Marys" to the USSC and hope for the best... We can continue to chip away at restrictive legislation. While some states remain reasonably free, we're not far away from more restrictions on a national level. Our margin in the Senate is razor thin, and it's not like pro gun legislation is making any significant progress.

I think one way to kill 2 birds with one stone is to start making ourselves less of a "target of opportunity". Most people take too much for granted, and make themselves easy victims. An ounce of preparation is worth a ton of cure. More personal responsibility = more safety, and, Idiots like the politicos in the FOP (note that not all LE are singled out here) have less political 'capital'. Their incessant calls for more enabling legislation won't be given as much creedance without sufficient reason.

Just a few thoughts...

 

[Drjones]

what are we to do about violent crime?

 

[roscoe]

Legalize drugs - I bet the murder rate would drop by half, as would the assault, breaking and entering, and theft rates. How many of these crimes are committed by someone trying to get or sell illegal alcohol?

 

[braindead0]

Eliminate the Federal goverment, they are the ones who want everyone to be a helpless victim.. If everybody all of a sudden came to realize that they could protect themselves, we wouldn't need much of the current Federal goverment.. and that's what they're afraid of.

State governments are in some cases just as bad.. but I think it needs to start at the top.

 

[AJ Dual]

Many have touched on it already.

-Legalize, better yet "decriminalize" all victimless crimes.

-Eliminate the welfare state.

-Use the prison infrastructure savings from the elimination of victimless crime, to the "life means life" comittment of certain classes of repeat violent offenders.

-"1 strike rule" for murder, sexual assult, and child molestation meeting certain criteria.

-Eliminate the death penatly, not on a "moral basis" (I agree, at least in theroy, many criminals wholly deserve to die) but on a cost/benifit ratio to the taxpayers and the burden of endless appeals on the judicial system.

-Universal Vermont/Alaska style Concealed carry.

-Pass along 100% the incalculable tax savings we'd realize if all the above were implimented down to the taxpayers ASAP to allow single income families again. 1 stay-at-home parent will have as much effect on crime as all the above combined.

 

[Drjones]

I agree with others;

we need to strip the fed. govt. like it's a stolen car.

 

[greyhound]

While the audience here certainly does agree, we are but a small minority of gun owners in general, and not even an accurate cross section of society.

Good point. We tend to get so caught up in the "us vs. them (hard core antis)" that we forget that the large percntage of the poulation could care less about guns and gun rights/control. (sad as that is! )

The great majority don't handle guns or have to deal with them and could care less.

The antis have made up their mind, and all the evidence in the world won't change it.

The average Joe is where we can win the battle. People feel less safe after 9/11 (not that that is good, but its reality), and even before then more states were going shall-issue, so maybe we're making some progress.

 

[Jeff White]

El Tejon is right. We have to change the culture. The welfare state has to go. The sooner the better. I have had a theory for year that if more people had to work for their basic needs, they wouldn't have so much time to get into trouble.

Legalize and tax drug use. We have to accept the fact that some people are going to abuse substances. Take the same approach to using drugs as we do to drunk driving and you'll keep it at an acceptable level.

Get rid of all the feel good laws that are delt away at plea bargain and charge criminals with the crime they actually committed, put them in prison for their total sentence and then give them all their rights, including RKBA back upon release. After the second conviction they are a career criminal and they never come back to society.

Make any crime that involves breach of the public trust punishable by life in prison. This will discourage malefeasance by those we elect and appoint to take care of government business.

Reform the civil torts code so that you must have a claim that a reasonable man would consider valid before you can get into court.

Jeff

 

[Graystar]

Legalize drugs

Oh jeez...

That's the best way to get the crime rate to shoot through the roof!

If drug use was safe and harmless do you think it would illegal in the first place?? Drugs are illegal because widespread use by ordinary people leads to rights being violated.

It's exactly the same as with licensing of drivers and road regulations. At one time there was no licensing and there were no regulations. However, it was realized that widespread use of the car by ordinary citizens was causing widespread rights violations in terms of pedestrians being hit and car accidents through confusion in the roads.

In the same way, drug use by ordinary citizens leads to many people being addicted which leads to crime to satisfy their addiction.

You may think the cost of fighting drugs is too much. But the cost of NOT fighting drugs is even higher.

 

[Standing Wolf]

Most of us here in the USA agree that gun control is a bandaid on a sucking chest wound.

No, it's not. Leftist extremist so-called "gun control" is a significant contributing factor to the sucking chest wound.

 

[mantispid]

Heh, I think someone here works for either a LEO agency that gets big tax bucks from the Office of Drug Control Policy, or works for a Trafficking Cartel.

Heh, just like when you ask a room full of people if they think taxes are too low... those people who raise their hands are almost always public school teachers.


Well here's an interesting test of faith...

Would a person be willing to bet their life that decriminalizing drugs will result in a net increase in drug-related crime?

I'm willing to bet my life that if drugs are decriminalized across the board, that there will be a net decrease in drug-related crime within a period of 10 years.

If after that 10 year period from the point of decriminalization, drug related doens't drop, then you guys can use me for target practice.

 

[Jeff White]

Graystar said;

Oh jeez...

That's the best way to get the crime rate to shoot through the roof!

Of course this hasn't happened in Denmark or other places it's been tried. In fact there is plenty of evidence the crime rate would drop. There would be no profit in it for the suppliers, who's going to buy a rock of meth from a street dealer at street prices when they can go get it from the pharmacy at a market price?

If drug use was safe and harmless do you think it would illegal in the first place?? Drugs are illegal because widespread use by ordinary people leads to rights being violated.

Then prohibition was a rousing success and we repealed it why? You might as well face it, ordinary people use drugs. In a lot of segments of society use is as acceptable as drinking. The number of people I arrest that are my age (47) and older that have done drugs, smoked dope, whatever you call it since they were teenagers amazes me to this day. We are now dealing with a second generation for which drug use is as normal as drinking beer. As long as we are talking rights being violated, how many more of yours are you willing to give up to win the war on drugs? You surely don't think we are winning the war on drugs do you? I'm in the trenches and I'll tell you we're not. And we're not going to win. The entire drug war is taking us right down the slope to a police state. The only way to win will be to legalize and attack it the same way we've attacked drunk driving. Combine that with elimination of the welfare state and you'll be surprised how many people stop using. Use is legal, but make it impossible to hold a job, drive or operate machinery with any in your system. Give companies that have a drug free policy and random testing as a condition of employment a large break on their workmens comp and unemployment insurance. Penalties for operating vehicles are enhanced for being under the influence. Modify current implied consent laws to cover urinalysis as well as breath and blood tests.

With no welfare state to provide food shelter and utilities for those that choose to spend their lives high, they'll soon starve or die of exposure.

It's exactly the same as with licensing of drivers and road regulations. At one time there was no licensing and there were no regulations. However, it was realized that widespread use of the car by ordinary citizens was causing widespread rights violations in terms of pedestrians being hit and car accidents through confusion in the roads.

Change drivers and road regulations to gunowners and guns and you have the same arguement the antis use for gun licensing now.

In the same way, drug use by ordinary citizens leads to many people being addicted which leads to crime to satisfy their addiction.

Don't you think ordinary people use drugs now? You might be surprised. You might be really surprised what goes on in your own neighborhood. I know when I started on the police department that I was shocked how prevalent drug use is. We all travel in our own circles and we tend not to see the outside. If the circle you travel in doesn't use drugs or only legal ones like alcohol or tobacco you tend to think that the whole world is like that. Trust me all of the people into drugs don't look like Al Pacino in Scarface, the heavies on the Miami Vice reruns or gangsta rap stars. Most of them look like the rest of us. If the addicts can get drugs legally at a market price, why will they need to turn to crime to support their habit? We don't have gangs shooting up the neighborhood to control liquer distribution since we ended prohibition, don't you think ending the prohibition on drugs will have the same effect? If not why? It's economics 101 plain and simple.

You may think the cost of fighting drugs is too much. But the cost of NOT fighting drugs is even higher.

What problems did we have before we started regulating drugs at the beginning of the last century? Were rival gangs shooting up the neighborhoods to control distribution? Were those that were addicted committing all kinds of burglaries and theft to get their next fix? I hardly think so.

I hate drugs probably even more then you do. I deal with the current meth epidemic on a daily basis. We are not going to win here. Not fighting the way we are. We need to try something different.

Jeff

 

[Graystar]

Of course this hasn't happened in Denmark or other places it's been tried. In fact there is plenty of evidence the crime rate would drop.

Crime, deaths from drugs, Hepatitis C, and HIV are rampant amongst the drug communities. And Europe has a much higher crime rate than the US. You statement is so unbelieveably wrong that you must have simply made it up. Do a little research next time.

As for Prohibition, every drug is individually rated on its merits. Caffeine is drug that isn’t so great for the body. Nicotine is worse. But history shows that the damage cause by these drugs is acceptable to the nation. It’s the same way with cars. Cars kill over 40,000 people a year, but cars are so useful that we accept the risk we take every time we get into one.

No so with drugs like Meth, Crack, or Heroin. These drugs are extremely destructive...far far more destructive than alchohol or nicotine. These drugs are so destructive that their continued use is NOT worth the risk they pose.

It does not matter if you legalize drugs. There will STILL be a black market for drugs. Just like there's a market for tax free cigs. And it doesn't matter how cheap the drugs are...if people are losing their jobs because they are getting hooked on drugs, and they have no money, they will turn to crime...they must! It's the only way!

Change drivers and road regulations to gunowners and guns and you have the same arguement the antis use for gun licensing now.

NO IT IS NOT!!!

We have history...evidence that demonstates auto licensing and regulations were needed and have made the roads much much safer. THERE IS NO SUCH HISTORIC NEED FOR GUN CONTROL, NOR IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CLAIMS OF GUN CONTROLLERS!!

Don't you think ordinary people use drugs now?

No. I think the vast majority of people don't use illegal drugs. If you have some solid statistics that show otherwise, lets have them.

 

[Art Eatman]

There are some 700,000 deaths per year related to smoking and alcohol. For illegal drugs, it's around 30,000--less than medical mistakes or car wrecks.

What's the difference between drunk and stoned? It's against the law already to drive while drunk, or be drunk in public. Why not just put drug-abuse in the same category?

If there is little or no profit in street sales of drugs, why would there then be turf wars among the drug dealers? That's where a large percentage of all violence occurs.

If drugs weren't overpriced because of the black market, why would users or addicts need to resort to crime to get the money to purchase?

I have no use for drugs, but the system as we now do it is just dumber than dirt. The tax bill alone is over $100 billion a year, at all levels of government. Yet, the street price of cocaine is the same as 20 years ago. Duh?

The War on Drugs is more a War on the Bill of Rights, as now performed by government...Which one seems more important to you?

Art

 

[BHPshooter]

No so with drugs like Meth, Crack, or Heroin. These drugs are extremely destructive...far far more destructive than alchohol or nicotine. These drugs are so destructive that their continued use is NOT worth the risk they pose.

I know of several people right now that use serious drugs like the ones listed. Destructive? Definitely -- but only to themselves.

But drugs are only one part of a completely flawed equation. If everyone is disarmed, yet there are people out there getting so high that they're inflicting violence, then that's not going to work. The whole system needs to be reworked. The complication comes from the fact that it's going to have to be reworked one piece at a time.

Most of us here acknowledge that criminals [by definition!] do not obey laws. With gun control, criminals can get guns many places, probably more places than the law-abiding can. So what good do the laws do? They serve to make the lives of the law-abiding hell.

So let's be consistent: if you believe that Gun Control doesn't work, then you logically must also believe that Drug Control doesn't either! Prohibition of anything is not too great an idea.

Just as criminals can still get "illegal" guns, dopers can still get "illegal" drugs. In fact, you can get illegal drugs just about anywhere. How can this possibly get any worse by making them legal? By doing so, it will make the crime wars obsolete and unneccesary. Gangs won't be shooting other people up for a "drug deal gone bad," Officers won't be in the line of fire due to drugs, the taxpayers will save a bloody fortune, and eventually, drug use will drop.

Just as with the gun, drugs cannot be uninvented. We have to start holding people responsible for their own actions, and stop blaming inanimate objects or substances.

Wes

 

[Graystar]

There are some 700,000 deaths per year related to smoking and alcohol. For illegal drugs, it's around 30,000--less than medical mistakes or car wrecks.\

But the vast majority of deaths from smoking and alcohol are based on long term effects. For illegal drugs it's from overdoses or other short term affects. Also, The government is not here to prevent an individual from behaving like an idiot and hurting himself (helmet laws not withstanding.) But the government IS here to protect the rights of citizens from being abused by others. THAT is the type of abuse that drug use leads to. Drug addicts are not driven by their own free will to commit crimes, but by their addictions.

What's the difference between drunk and stoned? It's against the law already to drive while drunk, or be drunk in public. Why not just put drug-abuse in the same category?

Oh please. You know that the debilitating affects of illegal drugs work faster and are generally worse than alcohol. It takes a good deal of alcohol to become as debilitated as sucking down some Crack.

Alcohol is simply a different drug than other illegal drugs. As I said in another post, each drug is evaluated individually. Drugs such as Crack can be instantly addicting. And these addictions are so intense that people succumb to them and destroy their lives for the drug. It is true that the same thing can happen with alcohol, but it is far less likely than with illegal drugs.

If there is little or no profit in street sales of drugs, why would there then be turf wars among the drug dealers?

You are making presumptions that have no basis, just like California did when they passed their power regulation scheme that ended up costing them billions of dollars.

You want an example? Here's a simple one. A woman is addicted and simply doesn't have any money for drugs. So she starts turning tricks for a pimp in exchange for drugs. That situation already exists. If you think it's going to disappear with legalized drugs then I dare say that you are taking an ignorant view.

If drugs weren't overpriced because of the black market, why would users or addicts need to resort to crime to get the money to purchase?

It doesn't matter if a year's supply of drugs cost one dollar. If you don't have money...you don't have money!!! You can't buy the drugs!

The War on Drugs is more a War on the Bill of Rights, as now performed by government

It is not. The war on drugs is protecting citizens from the ravages of rampant drug use. I can't believe that you would want the same situation that exists in Europe, to exist on every street corner in every town in the United States. That is simply insane.

 

[TallPine]

There will just simply never be a shortage of people who think they must control what other people do with their own bodies.

But there is hope ... some of us have managed to become rehabilitated and kick the "control habit"

 

[Graystar]

I know of several people right now that use serious drugs like the ones listed. Destructive? Definitely -- but only to themselves.

There are always exceptions to any rule. The issue is...what is the rule? In the case of illegal drugs, the rule is that more lives are destroyed and more users turn to crime to support their habit than not.

And I would be so bold as to assert that you do not know anyone that uses Crack and leads a normal life. I might go so far as to say the same for Heroin. I'd bet it's Meth users you know. But obviously I'm guessing so feel free to correct me. I will gladly stand corrected.

So let's be consistent: if you believe that Gun Control doesn't work, then you logically must also believe that Drug Control doesn't either!

That progression is only consistent in YOUR mind. It is NOT consistent in MY mind. In MY mind, consistency comes from when laws are passed in response to situations that are clearly resulting in rights violations. Further, these situations must apply to the population as a whole. Drugs are outlawed, and driving regulated, because both situations have demonstrated a need for action in order to preserve rights. Criminals may use guns to violate the rights of others, but that situation only applies to criminals...not the population as a whole. Therefore, gun restrictions are NOT the result of a situation, applied to the general population, that is resulting is rights violations.

See...it all depends on your point of view. My point of view is that you don't legislate unless there is a clear need to, and that's why my view is consistent to me.