This thread is not meant to debate whether people should own guns or not, that topic has been discussed extensively and I believe it leads us no-where. At the end of the day, our issue is not with guns but with the crimes committed with guns. We all want the same thing, but we have different views on how to tackle the issue. I think we all agree that school shootings are bad and that something should be done to stop this; however, I think we also agree that criminals find a way, the police isn't the most reliable, and every citizen should feel safe and enabled to protect themselves. Objective: We want to reduce gun violence. Scenario: Guns are here to stay. 1. What measures has your country taken to reduce gun violence? Did it work? If possible, please explain why it did or did not work. Credible sources would be highly appreciated. 2. What measures do you think we should take? Offered solutions can be anything, such as, a new law, policy, technology, etc. Invalid suggestions: Getting rid of guns. Education.
It doesn't matter what any other country has done, unless that country has a constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
Is it possible there are no effective solutions which are worth pursuing? Just a thought I'm throwing out there. What if we tried to tackle the overall general homicide rate with the same vigor accorded to trying to prevent gun homicides?
There's no solution. There are already so many guns out there that anyone can easily get one; you can't put the genie back in the bottle. You've made your bed and now you get to lay in it.
Given the harsh penalties for even possessing one as a prohibited person, why do so many still try so hard to possess one, much less be willing to use one?
Because prohibited persons rarely get charged with possessing a firearm, much less harshly penalized for it.
- Severely punish criminals who commit crimes with guns - Do not release criminals who cannot be trusted with guns - Shoot back
Perhaps we could stop wasting time and energy on the endless stream of gun control laws which accomplish nothing but political pandering and moneymaking for activists and lobbyists.We must acknowledge the carnage in the hood and deal with it .Federal task forces with FBI,US Marshals,IRS,DEA and ATF with a designated judge and federal prosecutors along with a mobile crime lab for rapid evidence processing to focus on gangs,drugs and guns.that could impact 50% of our homicides.
The problem, as it exists, is that no one is truly looking at the core of the problem. The problem, in and of itself, is not guns. It is our failings as a culture. There was a time when we not only were willing to take responsibility for ourselves, but actively fought for the right to do so. Now, we have a culture that celebrates self-gratification, thuggish behavior, and wants to blame everyone else for the failures our self-absorbed actions produce. In the end, we need to make a fundamental shift in our culture and in what we expect of our citizens. Firstly, we need to resurrect our dedication to independence and self-reliance. Our children need to be taught, when young, how to take care of themselves and how to appreciate the value of such skillsets. We need to bring back Civics, and teach our children their responsibilities under the Constitution of our Republic. Every student of high school age should be required to undergo training in basic militia structure and tactics, including basic firearms safety and martial riflery. I believe the National Guard should be dissolved, replaced with a true Citizens' Militia that every citizen should be required to serve in for, say, a two-year enlistment; after which those who wish to continue can then apply for entrance into the regular Armed Forces if they wish to make a career out of it. In the meantime, all those who have completed their two years of service have now earned their right to vote, and can own and carry firearms for personal security and defense. I am well aware such a proposal has pretty much zero chance of ever being enacted; but such would improve our culture and our national character IMHO.
There are no solutions to be suggested, as there are no solutions to be had. Not simply no easy solutions, but rather no solutions whatsoever. The problem is not with firearms, but rather with the society of the united states at large. The society itself is far too broken to ever be properly fixed, and with the degree of damage it suffers, there is no point in even making to attempt to try and fix it. To offer a medically-based comparison, the patient has lost too much blood to be saved.
We know that the 'more guns=more crime' hypothesis is not rejected. We can therefore treat gun ownership within the context of 'negative externality' analysis. A license fee to internalise the externality...
It is rejected by those who reside in reality and recognize what is ultimately the truth, even if they disagree with it. And precisely how will such work? Do not bother pointing to so called "researchers" who support such, use the words of yourself to explain the mechanics behind the proposal that ensure it will actually do some measurable good in real world terms.
It is not rejected by the research. Your bubble isn't interested. Very easy to work out an optimal license fee. Cook and Ludwig have already done it.
The research does not match reality. And as the member Satonam has specified that no proposals for restricting access to firearms are to be presented in this discussion, the position of yourself and those cited by yourself are invalid. Come up with something that conforms to the specified requirements of discussion, or remove yourself from the discussion entirely. Apparently the question was not understood on the part of yourself. Explain how the fee and the licensing requirement would actually work to have the desired effect. Detail the mechanics behind such. Explain how it will do anything to prevent the illegal acquisition and criminal misuse of firearms by those who cannot legally have them.
You've tried this 'evidence isn't evidence because it disagrees with my bias' every time. It is tedious. We know that the research, based on time series/cross sectional/panel and natural experiment, show that the crime hypothesis cannot be rejected. That is simply a fact. We also know that, given those crime effects, the gun owner does not face the true cost from their preferences. We also know that taxes, given the law of demand, will impact on gun prevalence while also ensuring- by shifting supply conditions- that these externality effects are internalised.
Like the research presented by Arthur Kellermann? Everything presented on the part of yourself is nonsense. Not only is it nonsense, but it completely disregards the parameters of the discussion specified by the member Satonam who set up this discussion in the first place. Everything presented on the part of yourself is predicated on the false notion that legal firearm owners are the ones committing the majority of violence in the united states, and that notion is simply not true. Not factually incorrect, but not true. It is nothing short of deliberate intellectual dishonesty.
Which is supposed to mean what, exactly? Then explain, in precise details, how licensing fees will prevent illegal firearms use by prohibited individuals. You entered this discussion to present a solution, now get to work explaining the mechanics behind it.
That he's provided quite a lot of research and you haven't read any of it. There is no notion that it will eliminate gun crime. It will, however, ensure that you face the true cost of your preferences. Basic supply and demand really.
The two main causes of all violent crime (at the 'civilian' level) are poverty and mental illness. Reducing either will reduce violent (and thereby 'gun') crime. Studies have also indicated that a combination of higher unemployment and higher population density correlate with higher gun violence. As example: Canada has very similar gun laws to the US (assault weapons and pistols require permits, but the average citizen can still buy a modern 'sporting' firearm relatively freely) yet they have 1/10th the 'gun crime' of the US. They also have 1/10th the population density and lower unemployment than we do. Concealed Weapon Permit issuance also correlates with lower violent (and 'gun') crime. Campaigns to promote CCW permit application (like reducing cost or increasing availability of prerequisites to licensure, or adding side benefits like waiving waiting periods for firearm purchase) and expanding State-to-State reciprocity will likely reduce violent crime. The War on Drugs is also closely linked to 'gun' crime. The bulk of shootings in the US are gang related, and the most common reason behind gang shootings is control over the black market drug trade. This control would be quickly and substantially diminished by legitimizing a competing source for drugs. If drugs were available in the open market, gang affiliation would be far less lucrative, gang activity would reduce, and gang (and thereby 'gun') violence would reduce. While this may increase drug use (the legalization of marijuana, where it has been, indicates that it would be a slight increase if at all), drug use in-and-of itself is not linked to increase violent crime, but rather the acquisition of said drugs is, which a legitimate open market may help reduce violence associated with that as well. I do not believe there are any restrictive gun laws that will meaningfully reduce 'gun' violence. Guns are (as you recognize in OP) a cultural fixture in our society, and culture always wins over bureaucracy. Violence is the manageable quantity in this equation, not guns, and violence is merely the symptom of other problems that we can fix if we focus on them instead of guns.
None of his research is anymore credible than his discredited opinion piece which has been thoroughly debunked. Once again, the same flawed belief that it is legal firearm owners, and legal firearm owners exclusively, who are the ones committing the majority of violence in the united states.
Project exile. For people who have no compunction about murdering others, there are only two solutions: remove them from society or remove them from the earth. For people who commit violent crimes with a firearm (or any weapon) but didn't actually kill anyone, there should be much stiffer sentences. There is only one way to stop "gun" violence: the punishment must exceed what they are willing to risk, and for those who won't be deterred, they must never be allowed back into society.
You can't simply always just legislate your way out of problems. Though a lot of the simple minded think that way.
