Successful ways of preventing gun violence

[terraformer]

We talk so much about the brain dead ways (gun control) for dealing with urban violence that we never talk about what could help. Now, first off, let me get a few out of the way that I know will come up.

• Lock em' up and throw away the key.
• Fry 'em
• Ship em' off to australia, florida, timbuktu
• Arm everyone including ChetD's cat and Puffin'

I am really looking for something more specific. Something that people who are anti-gun can agree with without much huff. I am really interested in hearing about programs that have been successful elsewhere (eddie the eagle, etc) and even if they sounded good and failed.

Here is my list thus far:

• Eddie the Eagle for inner city yute's
• Possibly have active and reserve military of similar race as participants do the eddie the eagle program
• gun confiscation (j/k to see if you are paying attention)
• having prosecutors actually prosecute and ask for hefty sentances
• sweeps of neighborhood parks for the so called "community guns" (I am torn with this one but I think it is reasonable to do. google for community guns to see what that is if you don't know)
• better and stronger leadership in the community
• A modified Eddie the Eagle for parents to teach them how to handle the situation better
• significant money paid for information on crimes (if they won't give up the info without getting paid, maybe getting paid will cause more people to give up the turds)

At the end of the day, the problems plaguing urban areas are socio-economic and to some extent cultural (lets face it, the people engaging in this violence see nothing wrong with it), and by cultural I don't mean foreign culture or traditional cultures but urban culture not tied to race or origin. I realize none of these issues is easy to deal with. I just want to be as prepared as possible to answer the question, "if we don't do x(increased gun control), what do we do in it's place?"

I look to the folks here for ideas.

 

[lupis42]

This may be overly libertarian of me, but ending drug prohibition, increasing legalized gambling, and opening the door to Nevada style legalized prostitution would cut the financial legs out from under almost every gang and mafia-like organization in the country. It would take a little while, but those organizations exist because the profit margin of crime is so high, because there is a strong market (sex, drugs, gambling) and no legal means of supplying that market. If there were legal players supplying those markets, there would be no margins for the gangs, and within a couple years, far fewer gangs.

There would still be crime, and some gangs would certainly find other markets to supply, for things that are less appropriate to legalize, but that would take time. If, during that time, law enforcement was out in force trying to make the risks of crime visible and the profits low, I think a great many of the people who live on the wrong side of the law would start looking for real jobs.

 

[Bob P]

1) Eliminate appointed judges, make them stand for election

2) No more CWOF's, etc.

3) Nothing. Violence is endmic to the human condition. You can't prevent crimes of passion and the only way you can prevent pre-meditated violence is to make the consequence worse then the reward.

4) Radical population control. Scarcity of resource provokes violence.

 

[HTRN]

1) Eliminate appointed judges, make them stand for election

2) No more CWOF's, etc.

3) Nothing. Violence is endmic to the human condition. You can't prevent crimes of passion and the only way you can prevent pre-meditated violence is to make the consequence worse then the reward.

4) Radical population control. Scarcity of resource provokes violence.

Bob P, you are on the right track.

The focus has to be on violence, not the tools used.

The only answer is accountability. Of your kids, your education and your actions.

Gangs are good for govt. So they are today's more dispersed mafia.

 

[seanc]

Unfortunately (for us) the problem is really not about guns. However, guns are the tool and consquently, the scapegoat for all manner of problem behaviour.

I think what needs to be done is take a really hard look at the crimes that are being committed and who is actually committing them. This is where the liberals get REALLY nervous. Once you identify who the vast majority of the perpetrators are. You then need to look at what they mostly have in common.
The things you'd want to look at would be (assuming we are looking primarily at the most violent crimes: murder attempted murder, manslaughter, assualt w/ deadly, rape).

Was this their first offense?
If not what other crimes have they been arrested for/ convicted of?
How many times have they been arrested, and for what?
How much time have they spent in prison, Juvi?

Jobs?
School?

And finally family? Parent, parents? Do the parents work, have they ever worked?


I think that more often than not, what will be found is that the people committing these crimes are largely from the lower socio/ economic scale. More often than not, single parent homes. More often than not the kid had problems in school. More often than not, single parent household where the mother just did not care. The primary caregiver (usually mother) just did not have time for the kid.

I would bet that the highest percentage of offenders come from a background where it was a single parent household, where the mother used the kid to get on public assistance (essentially the kid/ kids are the meal ticket). The mother never really wanted kids except they for one reason or another had no (ambition/ reason/ motivation) to work and having a kid seemed like the easiest and best course of action. Having a kid provided a place to live, food to eat, a monthy check. Continuing to have kids, gave her more money and more job security. as she never really wanted kids anyways, she really never much cared what they did, as long as they did not bother her.

So, my theory is that by getting rid of welfare, you greatly diminish crime in general and gun crime specifically.

Take away the incentive for a person to bring a child into this world that is not wanted or will not be cared for. I think the rates of teen pregnancy and crime would fall quickly if there were no carrot at the end of the stick..

.

 

[rep308]

Archie Bunker figured it out

 

[wolfhook]

Unfortunately (for us) the problem is really not about guns. However, guns are the tool and consquently, the scapegoat for all manner of problem behaviour.

Exactly. That's why Britain leads the world in violent crimes (and we know their views on gun control).

 

[lupis42]

1) Eliminate appointed judges, make them stand for election

That would greatly weaken their traditional constitutional role as a check on the ability of the majority to oppress the minority.

2) No more CWOF's, etc.

Not sure how much this would help, I suspect that most people who get one do not become repeat offenders.

3) Nothing. Violence is endmic to the human condition. You can't prevent crimes of passion and the only way you can prevent pre-meditated violence is to make the consequence worse then the reward.

I had been assuming that the goal was to prevent some violence. If the goal is to prevent *all* violence, it will be necessary to end the universe.

4) Radical population control. Scarcity of resource provokes violence.

Very true.

 

[Bob P]

I had been assuming that the goal was to prevent some violence. If the goal is to prevent *all* violence, it will be necessary to end the universe.

A gun's a tool, it doesn't make you any more or less violent, If you're driven to violence via passion or intent, you're going to find something - be it a knife, bat, pipe, chair or rock. Take away guns and you still have violence. 'Gun violence' is one of those lovely terms like 'assault weapon' the antis have created to focus attention on their agenda. Why in hell should we focus on 'gun crime'? Why not just focus on crime? Prevent some violence? I just gave you an effective tool - make the punishment worse then the reward. Make being violent a high-risk activity. Nature has demonstrated clearly predators do NOT attack high-risk prey.

 

[seanc]

Exactly. That's why Britain leads the world in violent crimes (and we know their views on gun control).

Which is why the UK has:
Long Gun control.
Hand gun control.
Knife crontol
BB/ pellett gun control.
Clubs control
sharp pointy thing control
The anything not NERF is bad control.

The were not so sure about this NERF stuff, it looks dangerous, let's ban that too control.

And a violent crime rate that makes Washington DC and Chicago look positively crime free..

 

[lupis42]

A gun's a tool, it doesn't make you any more or less violent, If you're driven to violence via passion or intent, you're going to find something - be it a knife, bat, pipe, chair or rock. Take away guns and you still have violence. 'Gun violence' is one of those lovely terms like 'assault weapon' the antis have created to focus attention on their agenda. Why in hell should we focus on 'gun crime'? Why not just focus on crime? Prevent some violence? I just gave you an effective tool - make the punishment worse then the reward. Make being violent a high-risk activity. Nature has demonstrated clearly predators do NOT attack high-risk prey.

I couldn't agree more. I hadn't actually noticed that the OP had specifically mentioned gun violence, I just meant that there are thing that could be done to reduce violence, but nothing in this universe that could eliminate it.

 

[Mike S]

The laws that protect the criminals need to be lifted or nothing will ever truly happen, especially in regards to "legal" search.

LEO's could take a lot more bad guys and guns off of the street if they were able to work within a reasonable set of rules.

Tougher punishment for crimes committed with (edit: ILLEGAL) guns.

And, I know it's off topic, but it goes into the bigger picture, legalize marijuana. It would dramatically free up the courts and make much more room in jail for violent criminals.

Also, get rid of the country club atmosphere in jails, no cable tv, weight rooms, etc..

 

[HTRN]

Tougher punishment for crimes committed with guns.

You are joking right?

Are you also in favor of hate crimes?

The crime itself is the crime. The victim is the victim. The tool has no bearing.

 

[drgrant]

A gun's a tool, it doesn't make you any more or less violent, If you're driven to violence via passion or intent, you're going to find something - be it a knife, bat, pipe, chair or rock. Take away guns and you still have violence. 'Gun violence' is one of those lovely terms like 'assault weapon' the antis have created to focus attention on their agenda. Why in hell should we focus on 'gun crime'? Why not just focus on crime? Prevent some violence? I just gave you an effective tool - make the punishment worse then the reward. Make being violent a high-risk activity. Nature has demonstrated clearly predators do NOT attack high-risk prey.

+1.... instead of blaming the object, all you can really do is try to approach the source of the violence and deal with it that way. Problem is nobody wants to do this because it's liable to be politically unpopular and expensive to a degree. Pols go after gun bans because it's "politically cheap" in the pure moonbat districts they often represent.

-Mike

 

[wahsben]

A gun's a tool, it doesn't make you any more or less violent, If you're driven to violence via passion or intent, you're going to find something - be it a knife, bat, pipe, chair or rock. Take away guns and you still have violence. 'Gun violence' is one of those lovely terms like 'assault weapon' the antis have created to focus attention on their agenda. Why in hell should we focus on 'gun crime'? Why not just focus on crime? Prevent some violence? I just gave you an effective tool - make the punishment worse then the reward. Make being violent a high-risk activity. Nature has demonstrated clearly predators do NOT attack high-risk prey.

+1

 

[Mike S]

You are joking right?

Are you also in favor of hate crimes?

The crime itself is the crime. The victim is the victim. The tool has no bearing.

There should definitely be more severe punishment for crimes committed with illegal guns. This is what we are discussing is it not?

This has nothing to do with hate crimes, I don't know where you even get that from.

 

[HTRN]

There should definitely be more severe punishment for crimes committed with illegal guns. This is what we are discussing is it not?

This has nothing to do with hate crimes, I don't know where you even get that from.

The way I see it is this..

If someone has a firearm and commits a crime with it, the crime is what is to be punished, not the fact that a firearm was involved.

If someone beats you with a baseball bat or beats you with the heel of a pistol, should the punishment be different?

How about if someone mugs you under threat of a billy club or a gun.. Should the punishment be different?

I say no, and the only thing that can be achieved by saying yes, is more restrictive 'gun control' laws, that again only affect the law abiding anyway.

A firearm is a very useful tool that everyone should have, not unlike a hammer or a fork and spoon. Taking someone eles' liberties with any of the above, are and should be crimes however.

 

[lupis42]

The laws that protect the criminals need to be lifted or nothing will ever truly happen, especially in regards to "legal" search.

LEO's could take a lot more bad guys and guns off of the street if they were able to work within a reasonable set of rules.

Just remember, any latitude you give to one LEO in the name of enforcing crime, you implicitly give to all LEOs to use however they see fit. Our laws regarding searches and seizures were written with the understanding that guilty people going free was a lesser evil than innocent people being victimized, not just by government as a whole but possibly by the actions of one bad cop.

Tougher punishment for crimes committed with (edit: ILLEGAL) guns.

If having an illegal gun is a crime with a punishment, what is the justification for independently increasing the punishment for other unrelated crimes simply because they were committed while also committing the crime of having the illegal gun? If I get a speeding ticket and a ticket for driving an unregistered vehicle, the speeding ticket shouldn't also be increased because the vehicle was unregistered.

And, I know it's off topic, but it goes into the bigger picture, legalize marijuana. It would dramatically free up the courts and make much more room in jail for violent criminals.

Not to mention cutting into the income they obtain from crime, and hence the incentive for things like turf wars.

Also, get rid of the country club atmosphere in jails, no cable tv, weight rooms, etc..

Well, it depends... is the goal of jail:
A) Punishment - In which case time should be as hard as is reasonable.
B) To keep likely offenders separated from society - In which case, by all means make jail comfortable, that keeps them busy and that in turn keeps them from escaping. But in that case, there should be no release for those who are likely to re-offend, regardless of what they did in the first case, and there would be no point keeping people who are highly unlikely to re-offend, again regardless of crime.
C) Rehabilitation - In which case, no more tv/xbox, more psychologists, more books, more education. Teach them trades, teach them coping skills, teach them how to be productive members of society. This would be expensive, and there would again be no relationship between severity of crime and time served.

 

[Larry Legend]

The way I see it is this..

If someone has a firearm and commits a crime with it, the crime is what is to be punished, not the fact that a firearm was involved.

I think he was trying to emphasize the ILLEGAL gun part.

Commit a crime with an illegal gun = mandatory 20 year sentence (or something like that). Then again, I get a feeling that todays prisons do NOTHING to "rehabilitate" a felon. In fact, they probably come out worse than when they went in.

 

[Mike S]

I'm saying tack on an extra dose of punishment for use of illegal firearm.

emphasis on the illegal.

 

[drgrant]

There should definitely be more severe punishment for crimes committed with illegal guns. This is what we are discussing is it not?

This has nothing to do with hate crimes, I don't know where you even get that from.

I think the idea is that the crime should be punished, not the tool.

Otherwise all you're doing is continuing to demonize the object instead of the person that actually committed the offense, which is the real problem.

-Mike

 

[Mike S]

I think the idea is that the crime should be punished, not the tool.

Otherwise all you're doing is continuing to demonize the object instead of the person that actually committed the offense, which is the real problem.

-Mike

Agreed, but bear in mind that part of the crime is the use of an illegal weapon. Without the illegal weapon it would be much more difficult for the perp to commit the crime.

 

[Mike S]

Hey Mike, Heinlein is one of my favorite authors, you ever read Starship Troopers? Some REALLY interesting thoughts on society, crime, and punishment in that one.

 

[sig shooter]

Agreed, but bear in mind that part of the crime is the use of an illegal weapon. Without the illegal weapon it would be much more difficult for the perp to commit the crime.

The problem is that you can say that with any object used in crime. "if he didn't have the bat, the man wouldn't have had his head bashed in, if they didn't have the car the man wouldn't have been hit"....ect. you get the picture. People are not getting to the root of the problem and that is that particular person and the people who may have let him/her out on parole when serving a life sentence for murder or another serious crime.

 

[HTRN]

Police know who the criminals are, but they are protected by the rights and feedoms that were meant for me and you.

Take away a criminals civil liberties, subject them to random search and seizure, and put them away.

Wow, you are one scary statist. So you have the power to take the rights away from someone who is suspected, or known as you put it, but not convicted? I know I don't. (Nor do I have the desire)

 

[Another_David]

One night well before the election I came across this segment on BET where they were covering the "major issues of the election". Guns were at the top of the list and it was 100% anti 2A. They played this sound bite from some community organizer and he said, "you can't control people, but you can control guns". It was an eye opening moment for me--I couldn't have disagreed more. This person that was suppose to be a leader and an advocate for his community had completely given up on humanity.

Bottom line is: control the criminals.
As gun owners we can not afford to give an ounce of our rights but also we can't afford to sit on the sidelines and say, "don't blame me". We have to fund studies--just like the antis do--and offer real solutions like supporting law enforcement and community watch groups.

BTW, yes I was watching BET--I watch and read all kinds of stuff. It doesn't mean I condone or support what I read or watch. When you shut things out you choose to ignore things and consequently you become ignorant.

 

[HTRN]

If someone is a repeat offender, sure, why not.

Not suspected, but a repeat criminal.

The constitution only applies to citizens of the united states. If someone commits enough crimes, reject thier citizenship and let them earn it back.

If you want to live in a fantasy world where we need to reason with criminals and once the arguement gets logical enough they will listen, so be it. However, there will always be people in this world that want to watch it burn and be destroyed. They will have reason, no regard, no justification, they just want to watch rome burn. I for one understand this and acknowledge it.

To sit back and say its all or nothing is just silly. If I want to be free and have rights, than so should the criminals? If you work for a company and steal from it, you are fired. The reason for this is because if the theif wasnt stopped, he would never stop, and the company would go broke and fail.

Well..... think of the country like a company and your a worker. The criminal is the guy stealing from payroll. Now you can either sit back and let it happen, and eventually the company will go under and you will lose your job, or you can stop defending him and let security search his desk and fire his ass. Except when your country goes out of business, you dont collect unemployement. North Korea bombs you and everyone dies.

Its time for americans to stop worrying about everyone else and start taking care of yourselves. This is your country and its falling apart. Your so concerned with the rights of people who dont give a shit about you that your creating a bigger problem.

Go rob a house. If you fall down the stairs, sue. If the owner pull a gun, sue. If the cops swear at you, sue. If you dont get read your rights, sue and then get let out on a techincality.

I think youll wanna talk about rights until youve been a victim. Then you understand. Please, go out and get robbed or assaulted and then tell make sure the criminal gets all his rights met. You can pay for his lawyer with your taxes as well.

Not me though. I am sick of it. If the guy is a repeat offender, throw him in jail for life or just keep searching him until you find something. Either way, he will get the message.

Heres one last thing to think about. One of my closest friends moved down to florida. He got into drugs. He stole a car and got a felony. He then robbed a store and got a felony. Then the police arrested him for breaking into a house and the owner was home. He got his third strike and is now doing life.

Now do I feel bad for my friend? Not at all. The reason is because he never would have stopped. He had people trying to help him because "he was just stealing a tv". Lawyers even donated time to help.

Now heres the catch. I asked him what he would have done if the lady that was home came down and suprised him. He simply shrugged his shoulders and said, I would have taken care of it. Last thing I wanted was to get in trouble.

So maybe its unfair hes doing life for robbing a house. But would it of been better if he finally did get around to killing someone?

so to sum up, make sure that everyone can defend themselves and make sure that restitution is achieved. ok.

 

[cekim]

1) Eliminate appointed judges, make them stand for election

Take a careful look at the track record for elected vs appointed judges...

They suck...

I like the idea of having "no confidence" votes to knock them out, but as a practical matter elected judges are "judges for hire"...

Sounds like it might work to a libertarian, but in practice is sucks... Appointed is the lesser of evils...

As for "successful ways of preventing gun violence" the answer is forget about preventing gun violence... As the CDC found when they went looking for successful means of doing so, there aren't any...

The only way to reduce "gun violence" is reduce violence period and that requires addressing the bigger issues that cause crime to increase and "anti-social" behavior to become the norm...

The answer is the welfare state and drug prohibition. The two work together to create an alternate economy/society that operate outside our culture/laws and for whom violence is a way of life since the social contract is non-existent...

The trouble is that this requires more than 2-step logic which the voting public appears incapable of comprehending...

 

[Coyote33]

Legalize more drugs (prohibition)
Tort reform (end silly lawsuits)
Truth in sentencing
Chain gangs (you know, the kind with 30 guys chained together with 5 guards on horseback with shotguns and no-nonsense attitude, doing HARD labor not picking trash)
Bread and water in jail
School: You want in, or you're out!
Allow parents to punish their kids

 

[Len-2A Training]

CT back in the early 1970s had elected judges. When you went to the polls, you had a choice of:

- Democrat Judges, or
- Republican Judges!

That's it, no names, no specific courts listed, etc.

I wasn't impressed!!

YMMV