Yank the carpet out from under the drug gangs. Decriminalize addiction, and provide drug maintenance to addicts. A huge portion of murders are committed over the drug trade.
Your poll does not have the best answer: ----Punish the felons as they were punished before the 1960's. Gun control is moronic and useless unless it pertains to charging the people who use guns illegally for crimes.
None of your choices address the problem. The problem is VIOLENCE. So-called "gun violence" is just a tiny subset of the much larger problem. If you want to reduce violence, then you must segregate the violent from the peaceful, and keep them segregated until they are, verifiably, no longer violent. Gun violence (and knife violence, and hands/feet violence, and ALL other subsets) will thereby decrease. If, on the other hand, you are not concerned with reducing violence, but only with the tiny subset that comprises 'gun violence', then your real concern is not about reducing violence, but about reducing guns and/or gun rights. That is a completely different conversation. You will not reduce violence by going after the guns. But, you will reduce guns, and their misuse, by going after the violent. For as long as our revolving-door criminal justice system persists in returning violent criminals back onto peaceable society over and again, I will feel compelled to keep and bear arms against them. And, I am thankful that our Constitution guarantees The People's right to do so, Shall Not Be Infringed.
Again, Mr. Bullock is on the most right track. Violence has got to be broken down as to cause. Assign priority according to cause, from worst to least. The drug trade is by far the worst. Focus on addressing the issue of the drug trade first, and, as if by magic, violence takes a huge dive.
Violence: the disease Gun violence: the symptom Anti-gun loons - almost exclusively, liberals - choose to 'address' the symptom because they cannot bring themselves to accept what causes the disease, and certainly aren't willing to do anything about it.
There's no such thing as "a solution to gun violence." Constitutional rights are always violated by someone. The "answer" is not to restrict constitutional rights for others. I find it particularly disturbing that most of those who call for more gun laws and bans do not apply their reasoning to things that kill far more people every other year such as alcohol. More die by drunken driving in the US every year than die by firearm homicide, and yet these people aren't demanding prohibition, background checks for alcohol purchases, or limits on the type or quantity of alcohol that the public can purchase. The hypocrisy is rank. I do not take these people seriously.
I don't see as honestly caring about death those who rail against firearms while sipping their martinis. Even if you include suicide by firearm, nearly 3x as many people die each year in the US from alcohol abuse. On the topic of restricting booze like firearms? We get crickets, we get backtracking and talks of "drunk driving is already illegal" or "we already have laws regulating alcohol." These people are incoherent. And I suspect alcoholic.
The best way is to train folks to use guns. We need to increase gun ownership, so that more folks can be trained. Those who live in areas where there is a gang culture should be banned from owning guns.
Mental health? Also, violent crime is at the lowest it's been in decades. Just something to think about.
The more we expand gun ownership, the more people we can train. Gun ownership for good American folks should be made compulsory. Gun ownership for thugs and gang areas must be BANNED.
That's been tried in other countries. Lack of a gun will not prevent someone from committing a crime. Gun control laws have no effect on the crime rate. Here's a better idea. Get rid of the criminals.
Never mind that ~70% of violent crime in America does not involve a gun. To a competent mind, this is proof that the "problem" of violent crime does not lie with guns.
none of your options actually solve gun violence... in order to solve gun violence you first must look at who is committing the bulk of the gun violence... gangs... now that you know who is committing most of the gun violence, you have to determine how to stop or end gangs from committing these crimes... that is what your poll should be about, solutions to ending gangs across america... the solutions won't be one single answer, it will be a combination of multiple solutions to tackle that issue... things such as immigration deportation when they catch gang members... half of gang members in america are now hispanic, they outnumber black gang members... things such as tougher sentences for gun crimes, and not pleading them down to lesser sentences will go a long way in keeping the repeat offenders locked up... things such as education and employment increases among all youth will help deter people from joining gangs in the first place... things such as drug treatment for addicts to cut off the money supply gangs run on and use to encourage growth and domination of areas through violence... and many many more things... but the point is, start with the largest group responsible for gun violence, the gangs... this will make more of a difference...
Simple, get caught with a gun that is carried illegally, 10 years minimum. Use a gun in a crime, life without parole. Period.
there should be other options. get rid of all federal gun laws that violate the blanket prohibition on the federal government to infringe on the pre-existing and natural right of free citizens to be armed. Eliminate the access to civil courts of criminals shot by their intended victims. Severe state penalties on repeat violent criminals who use firearms to perpetrate crimes of violence. get rid of the war on drugs.
you mean if a poor black woman is a law abiding citizen she cannot own a handgun because she cannot afford to leave the ghetto where drug gangs are common> does that mean I cannot drive a car because I live next door to a bar on the theory I will drive DUI? - - - Updated - - - which means someone facing that draconian sentence might as well kill anyone who tries to arrest him since he won't face any worse a punishment and he might get away. lots of people who know nothing about crime and criminals often don't think things through
Turtledude addressed this already How could you enforce a ban in a restricted part of a city? What if I'm a good ol' boy, driving across town on my way to go shooting? It's not at all unusual for me to carry enough guns and ammo to arm (or destroy) a gang. What if I don't live in the "ban zone", but I'm stopped there, and they find my "arsenal"? As Turtledude says, people who are not familiar with the whole idea are quick to find the wrong answer.
his theory is blatantly unconstitutional under any theory. guilt by association is now guilt by residence. sorry that's an idiotic theory. the people who MOST need self defensive weapons tend to live in areas infected by criminals
Draconian? Really? How about the death penalty...2 chances at appeal. No languishing in prison for decades. Quick death.
Every time I answer this, it gets ignored because it does not fit the media's Hegelian narrative, but here it is: ALL mass shootings are done by either jihadists OR, most likely, people on SSRIs. America is at war with Muslims by THEIR choice. You know the answer to that part of the equation. Then, when it comes to mass shooters, the psychotropic drugs known as SSRIs MUST only be prescribed under controlled conditions; SSRIs should be the last option, not the first; doctors ought to be held accountable for prescribing drugs that have the known side effects of homicidal and suicidal thoughts to people in an uncontrolled environment. Institute the death penalty for drug dealers and drug kingpins along with those convicted of gang related felonies. Then watch the rates of gun violence plummet.
