A true solution to gun violence does NOT rest with regulating law-abiding citizens. It should be obvious – even to pea-brained politicians – that the causes of weapon violence are criminals.
While is actually easy for the government to punish the particular innocent through legislation and feel as though they’re addressing the problem, increased legislation targeting law-abiding citizens will have absolutely no impact on crimes committed by criminals with guns.
“Why not? “, you may ask. It’s simple: criminals break the law so it’s impossible to enact a specific law that will stop criminals from perpetrating crimes. Laws that merely make it more difficult for someone to protect themselves or their families only work to benefit the criminal.
Should you cherished this informative article as well as you wish to get details concerning Sig Sauer P229 kindly go to the website.
If I were a criminal, I know I’d target people who weren’t likely to, or couldn’t, fight back. It’s much safer for the criminal that way, and they don’t need to get hurt while committing crimes any longer than the victim wants to get hurt during a crime. Doesn’t this make sense? So tell me: how does it create any sense to hand criminals EVEN MORE victims through legislation? It certainly doesn’t make sense, but it’s simpler to feel as though you’re addressing the problem if you’re doing something – even though it’s the wrong thing.
There are 2 root causes of gun violence that need to be addressed, and are mainly ignored since addressing them is challenging. Those two issues are: 1 ) ILLEGAL guns, and 2 . Scammers.
While screaming about “gun handle, ” it’s proponents seem to ignore a very real and true fact: that guns don’t, and have by no means, killed ANYONE. It’s the PERSON who will the killing. It’s the PERSON who produced that choice and committed the act. The PERSON chose to put that gun in their hand and pull the trigger. The gun is simply an instrument.
And I can hear gun control proponents saying, “But guns make it easier to kill! ” I freely admit that guns can make it more convenient to kill a larger amount of victims. But truthfully, a criminal who wants to commit such an act will discover a tool. Someone running around the mall with a samurai sword can kill just as many people before police arrive as can someone with a gun. Someone could drive a car through the mall and kill a bunch of people too. Or simply blow them up. There are many methods to accomplish such a thing, and it’s the person, perhaps not the instrument, who is responsible. We, as a society, need to remember that.
And let’s not forget that we accept other things into our lives that kill far more people than even illegal guns – legally medication, for example. On average, legally prescribed medicines kill over 100, 000 people per year – second only to heart problems. But no one mentions that, and the ones deaths are accepted because medicines help millions of others. Well, and in addition, legally armed citizens, and law enforcement, use guns to thwart or stop many thousands of crimes annually – crimes that could easily have ended in the victim’s death. Yet the media fails to mention that, too.
So what do we do about gun violence?
As previously mentioned, we must focus on stopping illegal guns, and criminals who commit violent acts. Even though these are much harder than punishing the innocent, they’re the sole things that will have a positive effect and help to reduce gun violence.
Stopping illegal guns is difficult, since there are varied sources for illegal guns. I suspect the main source of illegal guns used in most streets crimes is theft from homes and businesses. If that’s true, it may be wise to focus legislation with gun security, rather than gun control.
But even more important is to focus on thieves – the criminals who steal the guns, then use them to victimize the populace. The solution to this particular problem is more simple than it may seem at first glance. However , our legal system will need to be adapted to these solutions, and it may also be necessary to address housing a new temporarily increased number of prisoners. Nonetheless by using these solutions, I tightly believe the number of criminals will eventually decrease.
Here are the solutions I believe will help to drastically reduce violent offenses:
1) The punishment needs to EXTEND PAST the crime. Prison could be a dissuasive to crime if the price of becoming caught – for even minimal offenses – is much greater than the actual gain. I believe that any criminal arrest convicted of any sort of assault must have a minimum 25 year sentence without parole. That may seem extreme, nonetheless that’s the only way to use incarceration as a deterrent.
2) No hanging sentences. If they do the crime, they greatly the time.
3) Have a nationalized dying penalty for extreme cases.
4) Allow citizens to protect themselves and their families without fear of legal vengeance from criminals or their families. One of those who legally and correctly defends their very own life should NOT have to be subjected to virtually any legal proceeding brought by the criminal or perhaps their family. If local police investigation finds the action validated, then the matter is dropped and everyone can happily accept that an arrest got what was due.
5) Take into account implementing standards for gun storage area in the home or business, to reduce the possibilities of criminals breaking in and obtaining guns.
6) Make a thorough background checks necessary to purchase a gun. There’s no hurt in having a permit system to acquire guns. This maintains the right to purchase, and may help weed out some people that have no business owning a firearm. Is actually OK if this initial background check and obtaining the permit to purchase takes a very little time. Chances are good that someone who wants a firearm in a hurry wants this for an illicit purpose.
7) Help to make tactical firearms training mandatory for anyone who wishes to carry a weapon. Create home defense training mandatory for anybody who wishes to have a firearm at home intended for defense. A system similar to getting an owners license is reasonable. Get a permit to learn, take the training, then have a test to prove you can carefully use the training. That may seem like a “infringement” of Second Amendment protection under the law, but I believe it’s a necessary intrusion since other people’s lives can be severely affected by defensive actions a lawfully armed person may take. In addition , it’s foolish to have the gun without the teaching. It’s unsafe for everyone under all those circumstances, and I find it reasonable to possess some sort of minimum training standard that ensures proficiency and protects the safety of others.