How do we reduce gun violence?

And how long have guns been available to anyone who wants to carry one, concealed or not? Some lot of good they do, right?

I have lived in Arizona for a lot longer than 30 years. Do you think you have something on me?

I can tell you beyond any shadow of a doubt that I do know what I am talking about and, also, that I have never been sexually assaulted. Do you need to see my size and configuration of my genitalia? Don't have to be a liberal or a conservative to know that you are chock full of crap.

 

If you want a solution that truly curtails gun used violence, put everyone to death that uses a gun criminally against others. All this restricting the innocent and pushing the country towards rebellion is no where near a proper solution. If people must die, let it be the criminals, not patriotic citizens and government pons.

 

And no law should discourage people from carrying concealed handguns. The permit procedure is just a pointless revenue generator.

 

I think this is a good idea. I guess when I think about gun control issues I think about the difference from state to state. I agree with several who have posted that we already have a system but it's not working. If it's not working how do we fix it? In my opinion you highlighted the issue ln this exchange. If states aren't sharing information the same way, a person just simply drives to a different state and acquires whatever he wants. As the UNITED States of America, it seems like this should be an area that all states have the same laws. We almost shoot ourselves (pun intended) in the foot by allowing states to regulate separately.

Fine, lets not add anymore gun laws... But then let's have a conversation about how we get the ones we have working better.

 

The real problem is that the focus shouldn't be on guns, it should be on the people who use them illegally.

When have you seen them combat gun crime by going after criminals? It also has the side benefit of affecting crime in general, which SHOULD be entirely the point.

 

Man... what are you talking about? I never said YOU were sexually assaulted, that had absolutely nothing to do with what I said. What is wrong with your reading skills? This is a normal Liberal and Democrat problem I see, not having decent reading comprehension. Stop adding words, ideas, or anything else to what other people say, it makes you look..... well, not so smart. Also, you don't know what you're talking about as I listed factual numbers that greatly pointed out that your lightning strike crap was just that, crap. Also, how can I be "chock full of crap" when I listed the facts again? Those were not made up or off a generic site, they were crime stats posted by the government. You need to read, review, verify the facts if you need to (which you do), then make a decent reply. Are you capable of that?

 

Yes we should. I talked about the mentally ill. But there are other things we should do.

For one, we should impose harsh penalties for those who commit crimes with guns and for those who transfer guns to people they know are not allowed to have them.

Secondly, we could reduce gun violence by aiming at the roots of so much of it. Two things that aim at the roots:

(1) We know from statistics that the majority of gun violence happens within the underclass of our society. Since the turn of the century our middle class has been shrinking, and our underclass has been growing. The national debate about how to turn this around is important. If we can rebuild the middle class, we will be simultaneously shrinking the underclass. More people will feel good about their lives and feel like they have a real opportunity to be successful in the world of legitimate work and upward mobility. On the flip side, if the decline of the middle class continues, with the continued growing of the underclass, there is little we can do to reduce gun-related violence. I think it will get worse. So this discussion is very important.

(2) We know that a great deal of violence in the cities is motivated by the illegal drug trade, what with the turf battles and so forth. I think we should seek to yank the financial carpet out from under the illegal drug trade. Already, in a lot of states, marijuana is going legit. I would like to see addiction to heroin, meth, cocaine, and prescription pills treated like an illness, not a crime. Of course, our society should not promote addiction. But if a person is addicted, it wouldn't bother me to have a mechanism to get them their drugs legitimately. They are going to get them anyway, so why not take away the customers of the drug dealers??? I'm not saying it would be good for them, but it would be cleaner and safer, and above all, it would seriously de-fund the illegal drug trade. And if we de-fund the illegal drug trade, we reduce the amount of violence associated with it.

My two cents

 

Among other points is a key fact absent from your statement. Federal law requires that an out of state sale be shipped to the state of residence of the buyer, to be completed through a federally licensed firearms dealer. One cannot simply, legally, cross state borders for out of town shopping to take back home. The sale is completed within the state of residence, where all the records of disqualification may be held.

To get laws working better, one must demonstrate that they are in fact being applied. All evidence available suggests that they are not. Firearm charges are routinely dropped against suspects who already have disqualifying criminal records, meaning that they are not being utilized.

 

I live in Colorado and voted for the legalization of recreational marijuana. I have to say I totally agree with you about ending the illegal drug trade. An easy way to do that, make them legal. People shouldn't do drugs, but many do. If they want to destroy their bodies or even die that is their prerogative. I agree with treating addiction like an illness rather than a crime, at least for those individuals wanting to get clean. That would free up some space in prisons for people guilty of gun crimes. Several people have mentioned that penalties should be more severe for breaking gun laws, but the reality is our prison system is full and that is largely in part because of drug crimes. Why not end the drug war and make a ton of money in taxes by making drugs legal? That is for a whole other discussion, but it's an interesting link to this discussion of gun violence.

 

Yeah, I'm fine with marijuana legalization. Anyone who wants to use it is going to use it anyway. In most places where it's illegal, the penalties for simple possession of small amounts are very light, and they make no difference. I don't advocate its use, but in the world of recreational drugs, pot is the lightweight. I would not want to legalize the sale of the more dangerous drugs however. What I would go for would be a legal way for the addict to get them. I would advocate that the addict be able to get them free. As a taxpayer, I would probably hold my nose at the thought of my tax money being used to buy drugs for addicts, but the alternative is that the addict goes out and commits crimes to get the money. We may be able to offer a treatment option to the addict at the same time if they're open to it. But I do think this would at least help suck the life out of the heroin, crack, meth, and narcotic pill dealers, both the local ones and the foreign ones where so many of those drugs originate. And as that business goes away, so does the violence associated with it.

Haha ... if it was up to you and me, we would institute a holistic approach to the problem. Enforce present laws, keep guns away from the mentally ill, rebuild the middle class, and suck the money right out of the drug trade. Going back to the original question, I'd say that's a pretty darn good plan.

 

Haha agreed! Problem solved!

 

Why do our elected representatives not come up with such simple solutions?

 

Because their pockets are lined by seized assets.

 

I would rather they just, "stay bought".

 

Just like many people first buy an alarm system and safe AFTER they are burglarized, many people arm themselves AFTER they have been assaulted.

Millions are victims of major crime and assault. "It can never happen to me because I'm too smart" is a logic that works - until it doesn't and then it's too late.

 

Why was Obama trafficking guns to the violent Mexican Drug Cartels?

Federal Judge Obama Appointed Strikes Down His Fast and Furious Executive Privilege Claim

U.S. District Judge Amy Berman has struck down Obama's assertion of executive privilege over documents pertaining to Operation Fast and Furious, the Department of Justice program that allowed the sale and trafficking of thousands of weapons to violent Mexican drug cartels. Berman was appointed to the Court by President Obama in 2011.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/...ge-claim-over-fast-and-furious-records-217970

President Obama asserted executive privilege over thousands of documents after the officially contemptible former Attorney General Eric Holder refused to turn over them over to Congress in June 2012 and just hours before the House Oversight Committee voted to hold Holder in contempt.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiep...privilege_over_all_fast_and_furious_documents

President Obama granted the executive privilege request despite claiming to know nothing about Operation Fast and Furious when it was active from 2009-2010.

 

More guns in the hands of law abiding citizens.

 

If the goal is to reduce gun murders, the obvious means is to establish stronger punishment for criminals. Since the overwhelming majority of shooting deaths are by people with prior felony arrests, and since only about 1 percent of such shootings are by legal gun owners who are committing a crime, why is the primary focus on the law-abiding individual? Why isn’t there a greater demand for longer sentences for felonies, or for the elimination of parole or for the building of more prisons?

The gun-controllers do not see any major distinction between criminals and non-criminals.

Using a gun in self-defense against a criminal is different from using a gun to commit a crime. An individual is violating no one’s rights when he uses a gun to protect himself against acts of force. To the contrary, he is upholding rights—the right to defend one’s life.

 

I say that it's one strike and you're out when it comes murder and attempted murder and it should be punishable by execution.

 

Why can we play these shell games with Statism but not regarding excess regulation concerning the concept of employment at will?

 

‘Fast & Furious’ rifle capable of taking down helicopter found in 'El Chapo' cache

 

A multifaceted problem requires a multifaceted solution. For one, we need to do a better job at stoping gang violence and mitigate gang recruitment. That alone would take a big bite out of gun violence. No on how exactly to do that? Heck if I know.

 

End Prohibition and its tendency to incite violence.

 

Obama walking .50 cals to El Chapo, Obama is a giver!