How to dramatically reduce gun violence in American cities

  • Thread starter Thread starter Theo520
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
An easy way is to increase the mandatory minimum for gun crimes. In Florida they have “10-20-Life” law which says

(1) If you commit a crime using a gun, 10 years automatically added
(2) If you commit a crime using a gun and it is discharged, 20 years automatically added
(3) If you commit a crime using a gun and it is discharged and hits someone, automatic life.

2 years after this law passed, gun crimes were down 26% and 6 years after passing they reached 28 year low.

Much more effective than gun control because it doesn’t punish responsible gun owners.

However, the Left typically opposes these laws heavily since the Criminal Defense Bar are a huge lobby within the Left and they don’t want their clients facing such laws.
 
Last edited:
From the article

There are evidence-based strategies for urban violence​

In 2012, after years of struggling with gun violence, Oakland, California, adopted what is now known as the Oakland Ceasefire — detailed in a recent rigorous analysis published by the Giffords Law Center, an advocacy group that aims to reduce gun violence.

First, officials analyzed crime trends to see who was most at risk to commit gun violence. They found just 400 people — 0.1 percent of the city’s population — were at the highest risk at any given time, and responsible for the majority of the city’s homicides.

Officials and community leaders then coordinated interventions for these people, hosting call-ins in which they brought in the people at highest risk for gun violence for a meeting with police, social services, faith leaders, and other community activists. After the call-in, local officials followed up with individual interventions as needed.

The idea was to convey a clear, direct message, something like: “We know who you are. We want the best for you, but we can’t and don’t approve of what you’re doing. We will crack down quickly and harshly if you continue down a path of violence. But if you agree to stop, we’ll give you an array of services — jobs, education, health care, and so on — to help you build a better, violence-free life.”

The approach had focus, balance, and fairness. It focused on the 400 individuals at the greatest risk of violence. It made the threat of law enforcement clear but balanced it with community help. The entire process was made as transparent and clear as possible, with leaders throughout the community involved.

The result: While homicides increased overall in Baltimore, Chicago, St. Louis, and other major cities, Oakland’s homicide rate plummeted by almost 50 percent from 2012 to 2017. The homicide solve rate went from 29 percent in 2011, the year before Oakland Ceasefire began, to more than 70 percent in 2017 — perhaps a sign of increased community trust in the police, according to Giffords.

…
Click to expand...
 
Aquinas11 said:
(1) If you commit a crime using a gun, 10 years automatically added
(2) If you commit a crime using a gun and it is discharged, 20 years automatically added
(3) If you commit a crime using a gun and it is discharged and hits someone, automatic life.
Click to expand...
Ten years for any gun crime, or just violent gun crime? Ten years for storing a gun incorrectly in a vehicle would be a bit harsh.

(I’m not actually sure what transportation laws are in Florida. I used it as an example because there are strict rules about it in my state)
 
Aquinas11 said:
Much more effective than gun control because it doesn’t punish responsible gun owners.
Click to expand...
It isn’t possible to punish somebody for something they never had a right to. The government has a right to confiscate property that was acquired illegitimately or even legitimately. It does it all the time with real estate.
 
Last edited:
Every time President Obama tried to ban or restrict a certain round or weapon, gun store owners were happy. They sold out.
 
edwest211 said:
Every time President Obama tried to ban or restrict a certain round or weapon, gun store owners were happy. They sold out.
Click to expand...
I actually wonder how true this is. I know several gun store owners, and any new regulations drive them crazy. They’re interested in guns themselves, and they tend to be very passionate about gun rights.
 
They always had the Right To Bear Arms, even before the Constitution was written.

Notice the Second Amendment in US COnstitution doesn’t CREATE the Right to Bear Arms, it merely RECOGNIZES A PRE-EXISTING RIGHT (created by God)

“…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”

not “a right of the people is hereby create” but “THE right of the people” (meaning it already exists)
 
Drives them crazy about future sales (months years down road) but present sales are through the roof
 
TK421 said:
The government has a right to confiscate property that was acquired illegitimately or even legitimately. It does it all the time with real estate.
Click to expand...
Yes but it can’t confiscate property that if such confiscation infringes on Constitutional Rights of an individual.
 
Aquinas11 said:
They always had the Right To Bear Arms, even before the Constitution was written.

Notice the Second Amendment in US COnstitution doesn’t CREATE the Right to Bear Arms, it merely RECOGNIZES A PRE-EXISTING RIGHT (created by God)

“…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”

not “a right of the people is hereby create” but “THE right of the people” (meaning it already exists)
Click to expand...
The amendment was not historically applied that way, but in any case, that was the interpretation of the people who wrote the constitution but it isn’t a correct understanding. There is no such divinely given right in Christian history and there never was.

God or gods are useful to invoke because they provide extra power behind a law. Everybody has done it since the Pharoahs of old because religion can be very useful in that way to cement whatever system of government you are using.

Essentially: it was an artificially-created idea in America to help protect it from what was still a very powerful and militaristic Europe. The political landscape has drastically changed and now gun laws are being applied anachronistically because it has become a sort of addiction or dependency.

For example: a small child might not be able to sleep without a light because they sense that they are in danger in the dark, when there really isn’t anything dangerous. That is how it is with guns, except even more so, because no guns create safer countries rather than the opposite.
 
Last edited:
TK421 said:
was the interpretation of the people who wrote the constitution but isn’t a correct understanding.
Click to expand...
per that logic, you cannot supply the correct understanding of your own post, so I’ll just go ahead and interpret your post as factually incorrect.
TK421 said:
There is no such divinely given right in Christian history and there never was.
Click to expand...
see above
 
I meant that they were wrong in their belief that gun ownership was a divinely given right. That was an eccentric idea that existed among some highly protective protestant communities in America who felt threatened by European powers, or by Natives if they went further west. It was understandable how they felt but that doesnt mean they were right.

There is no divine right to have X, Y, or Z firearm. A government might decide to give those rights but they come from the government and not from God.
 
Last edited:
TK421 said:
There is no divine right to have X, Y, or Z
Click to expand...
What’s the null hypothesis? How would you know if there was such a divine right? What criteria are you using to make this definitive conclusion?
 
I dont really need a definitive conclusion unless I’m the one making a bold claim, which I’m not. The people who wrote the constitution are the ones who said such and such is a divine right. God didnt say that, but people love to speak on his behalf because it serves their purposes, such as if a nascent country has larger predatory countries watching it.
 
Last edited:
The minute guns are banned in 'merica the stores will sell out of machete and knives…after they ban them it will then be a surge at Cain’s Stone Emporium…

It is a heart issue…not a gun issue…
 
By definition, it isn’t a bold claim to say a negative. It isn’t a bold claim for me to say that I’m probably not going to be hit by a car today.

It is abundantly crystal in Christian history that people have a right to live, including the most vulnerable. The examples are legion and the history runs deep.

There is no such equivalent for somebody to have a handgun. None. Some well-bred, well-fed wealthy guys said something sort of like that in the 18th century in colonial America but that doesnt mean it is Gospel. That just means it is some guys’ opinion, and they weren’t the most moral group of people albeit they were smart.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top