What should really be done about gun violence in the US?
- Thread starter Kynoch
- Start date
- Status
Vern Humphrey
Member
Here's my answer:
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:
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 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.
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. 2. Possession of a firearm by a previously convicted violent criminal
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 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.
This brings up a story about a soldier downrange somewhere. I'm sure it's anecdotal, and I have no first hand knowledge of this story, but it's a good one just the same.
There was a soldier that was pretty depressed, down, whatever. He had just gotten a 'dear John" letter from his girl, and he was hitting rock bottom from other things in his life as well, in addition to being in a nasty place where people hate you and want to kill or maim you.
His Battle Buddy saw the signs of his friends' problems, even though his distraught friend didn't want to talk about it. He noted some suicidal indications in his friend, and took a small action before they hit the rack that night.
The next morning, at breakfast, the soldier with the problems mentioned to his friend that somehow, the firing pin from his M4 had been removed during the night, to which his friend replied: "how would you know that it was removed? We didn't have any action last night, and we cleaned our weapons together just before we turned in. Wanna talk about it?"
We, as a society, need to take care of our own. As parents, friends, whatever. As people, we always have problems in our lives that can bring us down. Parents, friends, family or whatever, need to step up and take care of those around us. Not government entities. When you leave that responsibility to those entities, you run the risk of giving up your liberty and rights.
Rights come with responsibility. Too many people are willing to give up rights because they don't feel the responsibility that comes with those rights.
There was a soldier that was pretty depressed, down, whatever. He had just gotten a 'dear John" letter from his girl, and he was hitting rock bottom from other things in his life as well, in addition to being in a nasty place where people hate you and want to kill or maim you.
His Battle Buddy saw the signs of his friends' problems, even though his distraught friend didn't want to talk about it. He noted some suicidal indications in his friend, and took a small action before they hit the rack that night.
The next morning, at breakfast, the soldier with the problems mentioned to his friend that somehow, the firing pin from his M4 had been removed during the night, to which his friend replied: "how would you know that it was removed? We didn't have any action last night, and we cleaned our weapons together just before we turned in. Wanna talk about it?"
We, as a society, need to take care of our own. As parents, friends, whatever. As people, we always have problems in our lives that can bring us down. Parents, friends, family or whatever, need to step up and take care of those around us. Not government entities. When you leave that responsibility to those entities, you run the risk of giving up your liberty and rights.
Rights come with responsibility. Too many people are willing to give up rights because they don't feel the responsibility that comes with those rights.
JRH6856
Member
Gun violence is an artifical construct. It implies a cause and effect relationship that can't be demonstrated to exist because it does not exist. Guns are not the problem, violence is. Guns are ar just one of many tools used to perpetrate violence (and not the primary one at that). Reducing or controlling access to guns will do nothing to reduce or control violence, but reducing the level of violence (which requires first identifying those things that truly contribute to violence), will the reduce the use of guns for violent purposes.
NavyLCDR
member
Stop blaming the guns for the violence for a start....
stonecutter2
Member
My take on how to stop mass murdering gun violence? Any mass murder coverage does not glorify/expose/focus on the killer(s). At most, the killers first name is all that is reported. Any self-serving drivel sent to reporters by video/text/email/letter are turned over immediately to police as evidence against the murderer. Enough with the ghoulish voyeurism that these events provide to the public.
Reporting of any mass murder focuses on the victims names, families, stories, ambitions, whatever. Only the VICTIMS.
For as much as people go on about how they care for the victims, and how things must change, who can name the first and last name of the guy who shot up Sandy Hook? No web searching allowed. Now, tell me who can provide one full name of a child killed at Sandy Hook, or a teacher? What about the shooter's Mom's name that started off his spree? That's a problem, and it's not doing this country any favors to give these nutjobs the "soapbox" that we are, on national and international media no less!
It only serves to potentially inflame others into showing what they can do, or that they can "outdo" someone else, or that finally someone will know the pain they endured and they will have their revenge. If no one even knows your name, it's one less incentive to commit these atrocities.
Reporting of any mass murder focuses on the victims names, families, stories, ambitions, whatever. Only the VICTIMS.
For as much as people go on about how they care for the victims, and how things must change, who can name the first and last name of the guy who shot up Sandy Hook? No web searching allowed. Now, tell me who can provide one full name of a child killed at Sandy Hook, or a teacher? What about the shooter's Mom's name that started off his spree? That's a problem, and it's not doing this country any favors to give these nutjobs the "soapbox" that we are, on national and international media no less!
It only serves to potentially inflame others into showing what they can do, or that they can "outdo" someone else, or that finally someone will know the pain they endured and they will have their revenge. If no one even knows your name, it's one less incentive to commit these atrocities.
The_Armed_Therapist
Member
I sat down to take this poll, and it ended up I didn't want to check any of them.
As a mental health professional, I'm highly skeptical of the leading answer in this poll. No, none of the others are better; however, I don't think throwing money at increasing mental health services will accomplish much, if anything.
As a mental health professional, I'm highly skeptical of the leading answer in this poll. No, none of the others are better; however, I don't think throwing money at increasing mental health services will accomplish much, if anything.
To echo what others have said, the label "Gun Violence" needs to be dropped before we can have any reasonable progress addressing violence. It leads the focus to the tool rather than the violent offender using it.
Harsher sentences for habitual offenders, better access to mental health care, and less media sensationalism for these rare crimes would go a long way to curbing some problems.
When it comes down to it, mass shootings are still exceptionally rare. The vast, vast majority of crimes committed with firearms are related to drugs in one way or another. From cartel wars, to a meth head doing home invasions to pay for his next fix. That leads us as a country to a much more difficult subject to deal with. Decriminalization? Harsher punishments? Zero tolerance? I sure don't have the answer, but it is something we need to look at. It is much easier for the government to blame guns than it is to address a whole subculture that crosses all societal boundaries.
Harsher sentences for habitual offenders, better access to mental health care, and less media sensationalism for these rare crimes would go a long way to curbing some problems.
When it comes down to it, mass shootings are still exceptionally rare. The vast, vast majority of crimes committed with firearms are related to drugs in one way or another. From cartel wars, to a meth head doing home invasions to pay for his next fix. That leads us as a country to a much more difficult subject to deal with. Decriminalization? Harsher punishments? Zero tolerance? I sure don't have the answer, but it is something we need to look at. It is much easier for the government to blame guns than it is to address a whole subculture that crosses all societal boundaries.
Well said. We don't need more nannies in the nursery, just need to act like men.
AlexanderA
Member
There's a big difference between the real risk of violence and the perceived risk of violence. And as a society, we've become more risk-averse. 150 years ago, American society was able to tolerate the huge casualty lists of the Civil War. Today, people would be outraged by so much bloodletting. There would be a race to see which side would surrender first, in order to stop the bloodshed. So it is with everything. Modern Americans would opt for security over freedom every time. Look at what happened after 9/11 -- America quickly created a "security state" that has been trampling individual freedoms in all sorts of ways. And we seem to be fine with that.
That's the logic of gun control. Create a (largely artificial) threat by publicizing mass shooting incidents, and prep the public to give up their gun rights in the name of safety. I'm seriously afraid that the modern mentality would accept that tradeoff.
That's the logic of gun control. Create a (largely artificial) threat by publicizing mass shooting incidents, and prep the public to give up their gun rights in the name of safety. I'm seriously afraid that the modern mentality would accept that tradeoff.
Kynoch
member
Your comment is beyond being merely obtuse. It's out and out rude.
Arkansas Paul
Member
Agreed 100%.
Everyone who is not in the legal field has this thought. If you are in the field you realize why things take time. FYI, it is extremely uncommon for something to take 2-3 years. Most states have a speedy trial time of 12 months from the date of charging to have the trial. Now, things like the defense being granted a continuance does toll the speedy trial time (for example if they put the trial off 1 month, then 1 month is added to the speedy trial date).
Not 100% accurate. The standard of proof in criminal cases is beyond all reasonable doubt. ALL reasonable doubt. If you're only 99% sure, it's not guilty.
I don't even know what to say. Just wow.
Actually reasons why may very well mitigate the fact that you did something. It's called an affirmative defense. You admit to the act but contend that you had a legitimate excuse for doing it.
Note, that when you plea an affirmative defense, the burden of proof shifts from the state to the defendant. They must now prove that they indeed should be excused from the act they committed. And if they don't satisfactorily prove this to a jury, well they've already admitted to the act. They're kinda screwed at that point.
I agree with that as well.
Didn't mean to dissect your entire post friend, there was just a lot there. Please don't take it personally.
Welcome to THR.
Arkansas Paul
Member
That would go a long way to stop mass killings.
It never fails, some deranged man kills a bunch of people and the media makes him the most popular name in America. Just like he wanted.
rbernie
Contributing Member
This.
The reality is that gun violence is NOT a leading cause of unintentional/preventable death in the US. Falling into the mindset that "there's a problem out there needing to be fixed ASAP!" is not in the best interest of good public policy, because it causes lesser issues (such as 'gun violence') to be the subject of focus at the expense of the more significant issues.
Per the CDC, traffic accidents represent the single largest source of injury-related death (as opposed to general health risk, in which cancer and heart disease cause more than half of all deaths each year).
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/misc/injury2007.pdf#page=30
In fact, even when suicides are factored into the numbers (which is the CDC methodology), the chart on page 31 of the CDC 2007 injury report shows that motor vehicle deaths cause significant more deaths than death (intentional or unintentional) by firearm. Also worth noting in the CDC data is the fact that in 2010 there were more than twice as many suicide deaths as there were all homicide deaths (by whatever tool was used in committing the homicide):
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr62/nvsr62_06.pdf#page=11
Moving on to the Department of Justice's view of things, in 2008 the DoJ says that there were less than 8000 gun-related homicides (as opposed to, for example, gun deaths via suicide) in the US. It's not hard to stack that up against all other preventable and/or injury-related deaths to see how much of an issue gun-related homicides really represents.
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf#page=27
So if you follow the trail of numbers, you might conclude that cancer and heart disease are the single more important issues to be addressed if the public's welfare was your actual concern. Moving past health issues into preventable injury deaths, you might logically conclude that motor vehicle safety and driving acumen were the next most pressing public welfare issues to address. Moving past that, you'd likely then conclude that suicides (by any means) represented the next largest threat to public welfare, and would address that. Somewhere at the bottom of the 'to-do' list MIGHT be the desire to address firearm-related deaths.
So tell me again - why are we allowing ourselves to have a discussion about a topic that shouldn't be worth discussing?
alsaqr
Member
None of the above.
Mass murders, with or without guns, are rare events. Murders with firearms have declined drastically since 1993.
http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrT...9311.pdf/RK=0/RS=qFPDSyh5WjchBpq9eI1UgvG8e0o-
Mass murders, with or without guns, are rare events. Murders with firearms have declined drastically since 1993.
http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrT...9311.pdf/RK=0/RS=qFPDSyh5WjchBpq9eI1UgvG8e0o-
Arkansas Paul
Member
I've often wondered why this isn't more well known.
The difference is that now when something happens, it is plastered on the news in the first 5 minutes.
Red Wind
Member
Do away with every single gun control law. That brings us back to the unalienable God given right to self defense which is simply ratified and encoded by the Second Amendment of 1791.
The KISS Formula at its finest hour.
The KISS Formula at its finest hour.
CoalTrain49
Member
Good question. Also, what is gun control?
These two terms start us off in the wrong direction immediately.
Guns are not violent. Therefor there is no such thing as gun violence. People are violent, guns can't do anything without a human hand and a decision by a human to fire the gun. So it gets back to what people do and not the gun.
Most people use the term gun control but it isn't accurate because the effect is really people control. The GCA of 1968 doesn't really regulate the guns but the people who can buy them. I can purchase one but a felon can't so the gun itself was never the object of regulation but the person who was trying to purchase it was. I can purchase a machine gun if I want but I have to pay a lot of money and get a license. Machine guns are still being made but only certain people can buy them and use them. That's not gun control, that's people control.
Getting back to the OP. After you look at this awhile it seems to me that the question should be who gets to have a gun in the first place. That's how it works now except some people that shouldn't have them can get them, legally. If you are under a doctors care and being treated for mental illness you can still legally purchase a gun. People don't go to the funny farm anymore, they just get a bucket load of drugs from a doctor and they are good to go. I know because my wife has a license to prescribe drugs. She sees people who she describes as potentially violent.
You can be arrested if you drive and use prescription drugs. But you can buy a gun and use prescription drugs. That doesn't equate.
Kynoch
member
The two things I see here that are clearly RUBBISH is the claim that none of the choices will help, and those getting hung up on using the phrase "gun-related violence" or "gun-violence" in place of "violence that took place facilitated by the use of firearms.
People that claim "none of the choices will help" (particularly in the case of mental health) and/or are hung-up on the "gun violence" label are part of the problem -- a big part of the problem.
The list I posted was obviously in no way exhaustive. I appreciate those that added additional measures they felt might make a difference. Some seemed quite important.
People that claim "none of the choices will help" (particularly in the case of mental health) and/or are hung-up on the "gun violence" label are part of the problem -- a big part of the problem.
The list I posted was obviously in no way exhaustive. I appreciate those that added additional measures they felt might make a difference. Some seemed quite important.
This. So many times this.
Sorry but throwing money at mental health is not going to fix the problem of violence. There's an argument to be made that it would benefit society as a whole, but say it would even nudge the violence statistics is over simplifying.
Panzerschwein
member
So many of the options are just ridiculous.
JRH6856
Member
Tt doesn't equate because driving is not a Constitutionally protected right. (Neither is taking prescription drugs, but then, since supposedly everyone now has a right to health care, maybe it is.
)
Crap, I should stop taking my medications (blood pressure, triglycerides) then
So if the homicide victim was stabbed to death, clubbed to death, or beaten to death you don't care about them?
The CDC, hardly shrills for the evil NRA, looked at many of those choices and were unable to find that they were effective (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm).
Cook and Ludwid, hardly shrills for The Evil Gun Lobby, looked at the Brady Law and were unable to find that it was effective at preventing homicides (http://www.dukechronicle.com/articl...inds-brady-act-ineffective-reducing-homicides). One of the theories as to why they were unable to find the Brady Law reduced homicides is that the % of homicides committed with firearms hasn't changed much over the decades, even after passage of the GCA & Brady (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004888.html).
The homicide rate went up after the 68 GCA and stayed that way for decades (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0873729.html).
But of course I'm the problem ... because I'm federally licensed and like to buy functional WWII weapons?
Guess I'm partly responsible for the thousands killed by drunk driving (http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html) and incidents like this (http://jonathanturley.org/2013/12/1...in-dui-case-given-probation-and-no-jail-time/) because I own a couple cars and have booze in the house
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked