Our role as the gun community

[Gordon Fink]

The problem is violence, not guns. In fact, firearms are part of the solution.

Ending the “war on drugs” would be an important step, as it would reduce the motivation behind a lot of crime, but it would also mitigate only some of the underlying social environment that creates criminals in the United States. To change that, we would have to undo decades of institutionalized poverty and centuries of cultural hopelessness. That is a tall order that can be accomplished neither quickly nor easily, but it can be accomplished.

Educational opportunity would be another important tool. If we could lift just a few more people in each succeeding generation into the culture of hope and prosperity, crime would gradually drop to its natural and legal minimums. Meanwhile, those who won’t learn should face the harsh reality of an armed society. Of course, creating educational opportunity would also require major reforms.

~G. Fink

 

[rainbowbob]

The question of how you allow one part of the population access while excluding another part, when they both intermingle and form close relationships, is not something I can answer yet.

The reason you can't answer that yet - is because it is unanswerable. It can't be done. Criminals will have firearms and any other weapon the want. That is simply unpreventable.

Long, mandatory sentences for violent crimes - regardless of what tools are used - is the only way to non-violently rid society of those unfit to walk amongst the rest of us.

A well-armed citizenry is the only way to reduce the number of victims of violent predators.

 

[Dr. Fresh]

Here's my plan:

Don't necessarily legalize drugs, but also don't incarcerate people for mere possession.

Comprehensive self-defense and property defense laws similar to those in Texas.

Complete deregulation of the 2nd Amendment, meaning no background checks or paperwork of any kind except your receipt.

Violent criminals shall either be executed or incarcerated for the remainder of their lives.

 

[1911Tuner]

I think we can all agree that gun violence is a problem.

I must respectfully disagree. There is no such thing as "Gun Violence" any more than there is Louisville Slugger violence or SUV violence. There is only violence.

If we're to stay ahead of the anti gun curve, one of the things that we have to do is stop pandering to them and using their terminology.

"Gun Violence" is a scare tactic that has led many people to feel that the gun itself is responsible...that all that's required for the average Joe to go off and shoot somebody is for the gun to be there. That when trouble brews, the gun owner's first response is to pull his gun...because it's there.

Logically, we know that the gun is a mindless machine that can't do anything without human manipulation...but there are a good many people who are devoid of any logical thought process.

So, let us start to drop Gun/Knife/Sap, from the discussion etc. whenever we speak of violence. Otherwise, we're lending momentum to the notion that the fault lies with the instrument rather than with the mindset of the criminal...that all we have to do is remove the instrument from our midst, and the predators among us will magically abandon their violent, predatory ways.

Yes...one day, the lion will lie down with the lamb, and peace will reign for a thousand years...but that day is a long way off.

 

[Gentleman Ranker]

Just an aside.

At the risk of being obvious, any solutions to "gun violence" or any other social ill will necessarily depend on what you think is causing these problems, and how much time and resources one is willing to spend on solving them. Most social problems seem to demand relatively long-term, difficult and expensive solutions, while politicians and activists usually need the (apparent) quick fix -- which normally doesn't work, but satisfies some constituency or other that "something (cheap, fast and easy-to-understand) is being done."

In terms of what constitutes a problem, I was surprised to learn some time ago that, for at least 20 years back (and IIRC longer than that), the number of suicides in the US (all methods) has exceeded, by a small but consistent margin, the number of homicides (all methods). By "all methods" I mean that these numbers are not those resulting only from firearms. I don't have any explanations or solutions to this, but I find it interesting that one simply doesn't hear much about this particular cause of death as being a problem.

regards,

GR

 

[Wang]

I have to agree with bobbarker. It is in our nature to kill. Some people kill in self defense and some kill because they like it.

 

[doc2rn]

To make crime go away you must make the penalty so severe as to make be people cognitively think about the repercussions of their actions, ie one day of hard labor for a speeding violation, sexual predators become eunichs with a dull butter knife, and murderers must be drawn and quartered.
These types of punishment work. To see an example look at the crime rate where the sherriff doesn't put them up in a 2 star hotel with good food and cable, that jail in the desert works.

We need a new approach where the legal system has a guidline, the sentences must not be delineated from the bench, and all people must be tried by juries.

 

[belus]

Those of you suggesting capital punishment for all violent crime, or even violent crime that does not result in someone's death...
Are you aware that's forbidden under the Eight Amendment? I mean we just had a case go through the SCOTUS which said that even raping a child is not bad enough to warrant the death sentence.

Think about this a step further. If you authorize capital punishment for violent crimes in general, what incentive do you leave the criminal to not make it full blown murder? Their possible punishment doesn't get any worse.

You need a series of increasingly harsh punishments for increasingly bad crimes... otherwise you lose a lot of the incentives which keep a mugger from becoming a murderer.

 

[green country shooter]

"Thus, for us to come out against gun violence puts us in a different category, the "responsible gun owner"."

I'm not sure how you "come out against gun violence." Is anyone for it? The NRA has sponsored several anticrime laws, including Operation Exile. The NRA has a large scale and long term gun safety program (Eddie Eagle) which has reduced firearms accidents. Have these actions made the media and the VPC suddenly view them as "responsible?"

No.

Like belus in the NRA thread, you seem to want to own guns but be able to tell people you're not like "them," those rednecks over there that are the "fanatics." It doesn't work.

 

[ProficientRifleman]

Advocate for OPEN CARRY everywhere!

 

[camslam]

Uuuuuuuuuuuuuuummmmmmmmmmmmmm, (as camslam scratches his head)

How about we simply enforce our laws, LOCK UP THE FRIGGIN CRIMINALS, and fix our justice system?

Do you know who commits the VAST majority of crimes? Criminals. People with records, and a history of committing crimes.

You'll never see an end to violence, gun or some other type, but if you put the people committing the crimes in little cells away from the general public, for a very, very, very long time, you will be amazed at the drop in crime levels.

I don't need to hear any crap from any liberals about rehabilitation either, it MAY WORK in a very small percentage, but studies, common sense, and history show, rehab for criminals is a joke.

LOCK THEM UP AND KEEP THEM OFF THE STREETS! There is your solution.

 

[tigre]

Like belus in the NRA thread, you seem to want to own guns but be able to tell people you're not like "them," those rednecks over there that are the "fanatics." It doesn't work.

Why not? Only because a noisy minority of people (in most places) want to demonize inanimate objects and refuse to hold people accountable for their actions. I own lots of things that thugs and miscreants also own. That doesn't mean I'm in the same category as them. Why shouldn't gun owners call out other people who act irresponsibly or use guns for evil purposes? Some people are so far gone they may never be convinced, but the ones on the fence can still see the difference. Those are the only ones to be concerned about persuading.

 

[belus]

How about we simply enforce our laws, LOCK UP THE FRIGGIN CRIMINALS, and fix our justice system?

I don't think this is very simple.

 

[Gordon Fink]

We already lock up more people than just about anywhere else. In fact, we lock up too many. The violent criminal needs to be locked up, but the guy who had a few ounces of marijuana does not.

Get the victimless offenders out of our jails and prisons, so the cops can go after the real bad guys. Too bad drug crimes are so easy to prosecute.

~G. Fink

 

[camslam]

I don't think this is very simple.

Care to explain why?

If the criminals are off the street, they are not committing crimes on the general public. Get rid of early paroles.

Instead of murderers getting out in 3, 5, 7, 11 years, you have them locked up for 25 to life.

Throw whatever kind of crime or criminal you want in the mix, they all get out early, if they even go to jail. Then they commit more crimes.

Help me understand why locking them up and keeping them locked up won't solve the problem. I'm all ears.

 

[tigre]

Get the victimless offenders out of our jails and prisons, so the cops can go after the real bad guys. Too bad drug crimes are so easy to prosecute.

Exactly. Prisons, and justice system personnel, are expensive. There's a reason for early paroles, backlogged courts, overworked public defenders, large numbers of plea bargains, etc. You've got to fix the overcrowding problem before serious criminals can be dealt with properly. And it might help to not lock up so many people in poor neighborhoods for nonviolent, victimless offenses, so that their families and communities aren't torn apart and kids don't grow up with such a huge amount of disrespect for police and the justice system in general.

 

[belus]

Care to explain why?

Well first, some skepticism is necessary. Whenever I encounter a simple and obvious solution that isn't being used, I ask myself what I might be missing.

Arizona's incarceration rate in 2003 was 525/100k, Utah's was only 240/100k. However our violent crime rate was 472/100k, and Utah's was 250/100k.
http://www.disastercenter.com/
http://www.asu.edu/copp/morrison/50statedata/09IncarcerationRate.pdf
So locking up a greater portion of your population doesn't result in a lower crime rate.

Besides, I don't want minor criminals going to prison with the tough guys. They'll learn how to do worse crimes, gain contacts within the underworld, and come out with even less respect for other citizens.

If you carry into Applebee's in Arizona you've committed misconduct with a weapon and are now a criminal. Do you really want to be prosecuted, and face a much tougher sentence, because your crime involved a gun?

Ultimately I don't trust our government to make good laws, let alone enforce them accurately and indiscriminately.

And it might help to not lock up so many people in poor neighborhoods for nonviolent, victimless offenses, so that their families and communities aren't torn apart and kids don't grow up with such a huge amount of disrespect for police and the justice system in general.

Great point.

 

[camslam]

The violent criminal needs to be locked up, but the guy who had a few ounces of marijuana does not.

Agreed. I will add that I would be fine with legalizing drugs and then regulating and taxing the living bejesus out of them. That being said, with the sorry *$$ excuse out DUI laws are in this country, the only way I would go for legalization is if we stepped up the penalties for both drug and alcohol offenses that lead to or cause an effect on another. That in itself makes it almost impossible to do because so few people take responsibility or are held responsible for their actions these days. But in a perfect world.

I would love to see our DUI laws mirror what they do in Israel. They are serious about that problem and they have great results because they take it serious. Do the same with driving under the influence of drugs, and make any drug related crime a doozy. Other than private, individual use of the stuff, which would be taxed and regulated.

If you commit a violent crime, you are gone. Period. You serve no useful purpose in our society and you chose poorly.

 

[loneviking]

Jailing 'criminals' irrespective of the level of crime committed is a bad idea. Just look at California, which built over a dozen new prisons that were supposed to handle the crime problem. Those prisons are now full to overflowing, thanks in part to the '3 Strikes and you're out' law, and now more prisons are needed. More prisons are needed, in part, because minor criminals come out of prison as hard core felons hating everyone and everything about society.

I think Nevada is on the right track. It's a 'shall issue' permit state, with a home defense statute much like the Castle doctrine statutes being bandied about. There is also a statute barring the criminal from suing someone who shoots or injures him while he is committing a crime. There is also selective jail enforcement, with gang members treated especially harshly. And, once gang members get out of jail, they can't have contact with ANY gang members from any gang or it's back to jail. Others, such as addicts, are sentenced to treatment programs. In other words, you make the sentence fit the crime and give the citizens the right to defend themselves without having to unduly worry about lawsuits.

 

[Tyris]

You can argue with me if you want to, but, look back to the Neanderthal era. Neanderthal's killed off the Cro-Magnon people. Why? Was it becase they were in their Hunting area, self defense? No! It was because they were different.

Not sure you're joking or not, but the Neanderthals are dead. Cro-Magnon man's descendants walk the earth. Cro-Magnon had superior communication and weapons tech, Neanderthals had more brute strength.

Now a good fight would be Giganthropethicus vs a modern Silverback Gorilla.

-T

 

[Soybomb]

Don't necessarily legalize drugs, but also don't incarcerate people for mere possession.

I can understand wanting to maintain some middle ground on the issue but what is this supposed to accomplish? The people doing the shooting are the people that make their money selling drugs, not the users. We'd lower the prision population sure, but you need to take the profitability out of drugs by taking them out of the black market.

 

[physics]

1911Tuner:
Sorry for my wording, I know the gun is not to blame. I have addressed this, and this is not what I'm trying to focus on. I use the term gun violence, because that is what I'm talking about: violent use of a firearm by a criminal. I realize my internet communication skills are sometimes lacking, and I apologize.

When I say that I think we all agree that gun violence is a problem, what I'm really saying is that too many people are killed every year by criminals with guns.

Mainly, I am interested in the idea of making violent crime much more severe, punishment-wise, and victimless crime much less severe.

Another interesting question that comes out of this is the war on drugs. To me, it is obvious that the war on drugs plays a role here, in that many non-violent drug offenders receive mandatory minimum sentencing for mere possession, and learn the ways of the criminal.

However, where do you draw the line? I have no problem with your average, everyday pothead. I'm not worried that they will try to assault me or steal my stuff when I'm not home. I absolutely cannot say the same of a meth addict.

Maybe making drugs (all of them) legal, but crimes committed while on drugs or in the process of obtaining them ridiculously punishable.

 

[1911Tuner]

Sorry for my wording, I know the gun is not to blame.

I know that, physics and you know that...but when we say/write:

Too many people are killed every year by criminals with guns.

Soccermom Sue and Briefcase Bob hear/read it as:

People are killed every year...
by GUNS!

The terminology means something. Words have an impact. Mark Twain once said that the right word at the right moment is like a thunderbolt.
When we simply say/write:

Too many people are killed every year by criminals

We are assigning culpability to the criminal rather than to his instrument of crime. When we equate violence with guns rather than with people...we start to believe that guns are the root cause of the problem...rather than the people.

Too many already believe it, and they believe it because of the propaganda that is being foisted on the general public...the propaganda of: "Gun Violence."

Let us work to undo that thunderbolt before it strikes all of us who hold the 2nd Amendment so dear.

 

[FuzzyBunny]

Any figures on how gun crimes are connected to the war on drugs?

Like how many shootings per year are related to the drug dealing trade?

The war on drugs just makes little Al Capones out of folks by creating a market for a product. Firearms are just a tool that has to be used in that setting to control turf.

I think we made a big mistake with the controlled substances act and no one has what it takes to lead the way in making it go away.

Drugs are not all the problem when it comes to firearms crimes. It sure has to play a big part in the mix though. Guns are just a tool and the bad guys should not be the only ones to have that tool.

 

[Tyris]

Agreed. I will add that I would be fine with legalizing drugs and then regulating and taxing the living bejesus out of them.

Exorbitant taxes would encourage smuggling. Kinda like what prohibition does now. Whats with this love of taxes anyhow? Its the Democrat solution to everything: Raise Taxes!!! The inner-city folk need more handouts!

heh. "Inner city" -- its a politically correct word meaning "where the scary black folks live".

-T