In my opinion, the best way to approach this problem is to enforce the laws we already have on the books.It is a platitude mouthed over and over in this forum. I just do not know what it is supposed to mean.
Petty drug dealer "X" has a handgun. He uses it to protect himself from rip-offs, collect debts, intimidate his neighbours.
If he gets caught with the handgun, he is presumably in shit.
Well, yes, if anybody gets caught committing a crime, they are in shit.
What does "enforce the laws we already have on the books" mean in this instance?
Drug dealer "X" is going to get caught with a handgun if he has it with him during a drug bust, or if he shoots somebody and is apprehended with the handgun, or if his premises are searched on a warrant for some reason.
And if he goes to prison, drug dealer "Y" and his handgun are going to take his place. What has been accomplished?
If petty drug dealers were worried about going to prison, would they not have chosen a different career already?
Has the death penalty ended murder in the US yet?
If we find effective ways to address the crime and illegal drug problem we will reduce the demand for firearms by honest citizens who feel they need a firearm for self defense.Yeah, and you'll also put an end to shoplifting and the price of goods will drop 10%.
Meanwhile, people are being killed by firearm, in the hands of the criminals and the honest citizens who feel like murdering their wives, or cleaning the things with their three-year-old within arm's reach.
Passing even more draconian gun laws without addressing the illegal guns in criminal hands merely ignores and does very little to reduce the crime and homicide problem.What the hell is "draconian" about
- requiring that a licence be obtained in order to acquire a firearm?
- requiring that transfers of firearms be registered?
- requiring that firearms be stored safely and securely?
What "draconian" laws do you have in mind here?
I mean, I'd go with
prohibit handgun possession, myself, but we all know we're not talking about that.
True, fewer firearms in the hands of honest citizens will translate into fewer gun accidents and fewer domestic murders, which is a positive.Yes, and
fewer firearm thefts, to the tune of a few 100,000 a year or whatever it is.
And
fewer intentional transfers to ineligible/inappropriate persons, whether knowingly or not.
However, an increasing crime rate fed by the demand for illegal drugs contributes to a rising homicide and firearm injury rate both by the people who commit crime to obtain the drugs and by the organized gangs who profit from selling the drugs. Reported incidents of crime cause honest citizens to obtain firearms as a realistic or perceived protection from crime.Just having to read this "honest citizen" fucking crap over and fucking over makes my eyes hurt. Orwellian doublespeak.
Easy access to firearms feeds the supply of illegal drugs.
Drug traffickers/dealers CANNOT OPERATE without firearms. And obviously we agree that the side effects of drug trafficking, in particular the violence associated with it, for individuals and communities, is as much the problem as the effects of the drugs themselves on individuals and communities.
I hope we start focusing our efforts on taking illegal firearms off the street and launching a coordinated effort between federal state and local law enforcement to combat criminal gangs.And they will continue to steal fresh ones.
And if there were a neat way to "combat criminal gangs", someone would have come up with it. We have this problem, and we actually have organized-crime laws that (I think) are stronger than yours. It is impossible to "combat criminal gangs" without running into constitutional and evidentiary problems, other than by simply prosecuting offenders for offences, one by one by one.
This approach is far more expensive than passing new laws which the criminal element will merely ignore.How does a CRIMINAL ignore the law that prohibits the lawful owner from transferring a firearm to him/her if s/he does not have a licence or pass a background check, and register the transfer?
When "criminals don't obey the law" is put to ME, it is a great big huge straw monster. I have NEVER focused on laws that criminals need to obey, in fact I can't think of when I have had 10 words to say about such laws.
The expense will involve an increased police presence in the bad neighborhoods, a more efficient legal system and possibly more prisons. In many neighborhoods this effort will prove unpopular at first. We need to establish trust between the communities who are plagued by criminal violence with neighborhood police and community involvement. I've personally seen efforts in this direction.And it's what's being done in places like downtown Toronto -- except for the "more prisons" crap. Nobody but the ultra-right wing here (the Conservative party federally) buys into that, and everybody else knows we need only look south of our border to see that (a) it is a corporate money-making scheme, and (b) it is a waste of money and more a part of the problem than the solution.
We also need to address the failure of our educational system and provide meaningful jobs that provide good wages. Perhaps we need to examine the idea of legalizing some drugs.Duh, if you'll forgive the expression.
But to imagine that organized crime will not look for and find other sources of profit, and set about exploiting them with the same level of violence, is to be naive. Of course, we could legalize all drugs, all forms of gambling and all prostitution-related activities, eliminate all excise taxes on tobacco and alcohol ... and there would still be corruption, and protection rackets. And they would still depend on
access to firearms to operate.
Dr. Suzanna Gratia-Hupp testified in front of Congress then ran as a Republican and won election to the Texas House of Representatives. She was instrumental in passing the current CCW law in Texas. It would have made little sense at the time to run as a Democrat on this issue.Well gee. If she believed in labour rights and women's rights and generally improving the public welfare and "liberal"/progressive stuff like that, it wouldn't have made much sense to run as a Republican.
The people we elect are all to often interested in following the party line and playing offense and defense like professional football teams.Actually, the facts are quite the opposite. You have the weakest party system of any country in the advanced industrial, or whatever we might call it, class. You have no party discipline, and no requirement that people running, or elected, under a party's banner adhere to any particular agenda. Your elected representatives act like free agents when they choose, bargaining and horsetrading in your legislatures.
A more coherent party system with stricter party discipline might just produce interesting results. It could mean adjusting a party's agenda to the right when an electorate is massively right-wing, as your electorate currently is. (Never mind that "centrist" bull; what is "centre" in the US is right-wing by any minimally objective standard.) So be it, if that's the case. But while that means ditching women and the GLBT community and various other minorities most likely, it does not mean moving right on firearms, because the fact is that a majority of your electorate supports existing and greater firearms control. It does mean campaigning to that fact, and not dancing like a trained bear to the right wing's tune on the issue.
While the people we elect to office seem incapable of addressing the problem of crime and violence, I want the right to own a firearm for self defense. Since I qualify, (have passed the background check and all other requirements), I also want the right to carry a weapon concealed.While my municipality is unable to provide me with a water park within 2 blocks of my home, I want to turn my backyard into one. Oh well.
I view my concealed weapon as my insurance policy, seat belt or fire extinguisher.And it's a fine talking point it is.
You let me know the next time someone's insurance policy kills his/her child, or someone's seat belt is stolen and used to hold up a convenience store, or even when someone hits someone over the head with a fire extinguisher.
I view the crocodiles in the moat I'd like to dig around my house as my insurance policy against burglary. Sadly, my municipality takes a dim view of that one, too.
Canada is a far different culture with a far different history and outlook.Ah, American Exceptionalism. The only problem is, Canada is far more different culturally from most European countries, say, than it is from the US. One really huge difference between Canada and the US is the Canadian rejection of patriarchy as the organizing principle of our society, and the rising embrace of it in the US. A real biggie, that one.
http://erg.environics.net/media_room/default.asp?aID=456Seriously, if you had the ability, how would you address the problem of crime and violence in the States? What gun control measures would you propose?I've posted them til I'm blue in the face, really -- always and only in response to a request.
1. mandatory licensing to acquire/possess firearms
(includes proof of successful training and appropriate background checks)
2. mandatory registration of all transfers of firearms
3. safe/secure storage legislation
The last is obviously the most difficult to "enforce", as, like most offences, it can only be enforced in the breach. Since it is directed to the law-abiding, people in lawful possession of firearms, who are presumably at least somewhat amenable to reasonable persuasion and apprehensive about the consequences of being found in violation, even if the risk of that happening is low, it is still worthwhile.
I obviously cannot imagine wanting to live in a society where anyone who is not insane or criminal may legally possess, let alone wander around with, a handgun, but that's me, and of course the huge overwhelming majority of Canadians, and Brits, and Europeans, and Australians and NZers, and most people in the world. So you get to be exceptional there. Remembering that "exceptional" really doesn't mean "better".