Let me tell what I think of 2 solutions that are the most popular.. taking guns away or giving all of us a gun. You can take all the guns away but we know how to make more so that's not gonna work. You would have to ban plastic, wood, metal, gunpowder, and any powdery substance that can explode to prevent the home-made manufacturing of guns. So there's really no point in taking away guns because if we don't go and make our own, there's always knives, bats, poison, and marriage that can be used to kill somebody. Remember the old saying.. "where there's a will, there's a way"? That's very very true in America! Now for the other side of the coin, giving everyone a gun is a stupid mistake. There's people with very serious mental illnesses, hard-core alcoholics, drug abusers, and criminals who have absolutely no business holding a weapon of any sort and the trouble is.. how do you know? Be honest with yourselves and think objectively. Not all criminals are caught and and not all are in the system as they should be. How do you know someone is hiding a psychotic personality behind the smile? Is the red nose from an allergy or from a life of alcoholism? And if you ask, how do you know you're being told the truth? There's honestly no perfect way to vet the ownership of guns and there will never be a perfect system. Period. What we need to do is strike a balance and to attack what we can see are some of underlying causes of most of the problems.
I've known of a small town in Idaho where there's practically a gun for every person and the crime rate is ridiculously low. Most of the crime there is someone getting a ticket for driving drunk. In fact, the last attempted murder there took place in the late 1930s and it was a a series of 2 shoot-outs because of one family's retaliation for a self defense or murder case back in 1907? involving an elderly male who lived in that town. However, the murder or self-defense took place in a town further to the north so technically, there's never been a murder in this town. Only a couple of shootouts. There's literally more enough guns in that little town to arm every man, woman, and child there. But there are no gangs and very few drug users and when we find them, we get them in treatment or chase them out.
Contrast that with Chicago where there's at least a murder a day and it's also swimming with guns. What's the difference? 2 words.. gangs and drugs. In that order. That city is chock full of gang-bangers and druggies. I mean full beyond bursting. We'd need to focus on eradicating the issue of gangs having an out-sized presence and the primary reason they fight is to protect their drug territory. So if you get with the program of focusing on comprehensive assistance for drug abuse, alcoholism, and mental illnesses including therapy, medication, etc. You WILL see a decrease in crime going that route. That alone would make the gangs weaker and become desperate because you'd seriously hurt their primary source of income - drugs. Add in some gang-busting measures on the weakening gangs and you'd really see a HUGE decrease in gun violence. That's a great 1-2 punch to reduce gun violence but we CAN do a little bit more.
Tightening the gun control measures by doing better background checks, keeping assault weapons illegal, and limiting the clip does make sense in the thought that it would increase the penalty for those caught breaking the law and potentially lock them up for life. Let's say a gang member grabs a illegal assault weapon loaded with an illegal clip and commits a crime in possession of the weapon. Now the criminal is now facing 3 charges instead of one. That stacks a lot of extra time onto a sentence. So some gun control measures to limit possession of assault weapons and more 5 round ammo clips does make sense in that regard. A typical hunter or a target shooter wouldn't mind a quick change of magazines and shooting on full auto messes up your aim and perforates your dinner. There's no sense in wasting meat or shredding targets. I'd want to point out that my aim is better than yours..
Then with tightening the gun shows and internet sales loopholes, you would make it illegal to sell without verifying that your buyer has passed a background check.
Then making the check just a little more rigid with excluding those with drug or gang convictions from owning a gun would seriously reduce the amount of guns in the hands of criminals and gangs. The primary method that gangs use get guns is to tell a drug user "bring me a gun and i'll give you a little meth/crank/speed/etc". It's not illegal for a person convicted of a minor drug possession to buy a gun over and over and over again. Secondly, creating a secure and private system to allow a psychologist or a person to send a letter stating that he/she should not own a gun due to a mental instability or suicidal thoughts would reduce the amount of suicide by gun. That alone would drastically increase the survival of those thinking of suicide. And it would also increase their odds of being treated and becoming themselves again.
The trouble with what I personally consider sensible measures to attack the problem is getting the government behind it. To me it seems like a pipe dream to get the government to do this and it's already known that these methods work. What's stopping them? Why can't the politicians get behind this? Why is it more important to scream about "second amendment rights" when it's really sensible laws. combating gang violence, treating mental illnesses and drug and alcohol abuse that will make all the difference in the world?
What do you think?