Down in middle of the article, an interesting discussion on how Oakland had success in reducing their gun crime, by targeting like offenders with intervention their homicide rate dropped 50%.
The confiscation of guns from society.
And how, exactly, are we going to do that?
What about the 99.99% of shooters who never commit a crime with their guns?
And what would become of the Olympic Shooting teams?
Ya know, your car or truck kills, injures or maims at least 4X what guns do.
Where’s the outcry?
Ask any cop or probation officer. Targeting the worst offenders and saving their lives by incarcerating them (yes, incarceration saves lives), violent crime rates definitely drop.
And no trampling upon the law-abiding is needed.
Simple, you put the @po18guy on the beat
You have to read down to the Oakland story, and the Boston story.
They dramatically reduced homicides with community action, not gun control.
I hope you’re kidding. You don’t seem to understand the purpose is of the Second Amendment to the Constitution. When America was a young nation, its founders had in mind for it the very reason for the existence of the United States; the fleeing of the tyrannical overlords in charge in Europe who then tried to come and take over America as well. Gun ownership prevented this from occurring and was therefore codified into the basic rights of its citizens for a reason; so that against a tyrannical government the people could unite and take back power if need be. To “confiscate guns from society” would basically go against the very raison d’etre of America. Taking the guns away from the citizens gives all the power to whomever’s in charge for the day whether they are good or bad and therefore takes away any little power the people themselves could collectively have to keep a potentially tyrannical government in check because of the potential for things to get uglier than anyone would want to see. Moreover, the places where gun ownership has been obliterated have become the worst most degenerate places on earth where the citizens themselves have even less rights. Ask me how I know; I live in one such country where when gun ownership has been reduced to almost nothing where the criminals already breaking the law kept their guns and the law-abiding citizens gave up their guns and had no way to protect themselves anymore.
No offense but there’s like 3 threads on this already
there are approximately 393 million small arms in the United States, the vast majority owned by non-criminal civilians. According to the Center for Disease Control, as many as 2 million may be used each year as defensive weapons against criminals - and that was not counting criminal on criminal use.
And then there is the Second Amendment; there is a lot of loose talk about repealing it, and that talk along with $4.50 will get you a latte at Starbucks.
Confiscating pistols and revolvers from innocent civilians is not going to stop the gang warfare going on in the streets of Houston, or Baltimore, or Chicago; but it will lead to an increase in burglaries and robberies as criminals get the idea that no one - or most people - are not armed.
Intervention appears to provide some solution to the matter. However, as the article makes reasonably clear, it will reduce the violence but not do away with it.
Anyone interested in what happens when most small arms are outlawed should look into the statistics of injuries and murders due to knifing - in merry Old England. One weapon simply replaced another, and is equally capable of killing or seriously injuring the victim.
Perhaps one of the unspoken oxymorons is commentary on suicides. There is a conflict, whether it reaches the level of consciousness or not, between trying to prevent suicides, and the move to make physician suicide more available, and the extermination of somewhere between 55,000,000 and 60,000,000 children in the womb. People may not be able to put their finger on it, but there is a massive dichotomy between the absolute disrespect for life those two issues make, and the almost desperate attempt to deal with suicides starting with teenagers and moving up rapidly to veterans. call me cynical, but I strongly suspect those who are most adamant about maintaining abortion and physician assisted suicide could care less if our veterans kill themselves.
On this article? I didn’t mean to post a duplicate but don’t recall seeing it posted.
No I suppose not but anything smelling of the left gets dismissed.
At the very least the book might make gun lovers acknowledge that the problem is very real and should actually be addressed with action.
“gun lovers” are 100% for reducing homicide rates, especially in trouble spots like Chicago, LA, etc. I resent your implication they avoid the problem.
The author of the article, an avowed anti-gunner, acknowledges the solutions that are demonstrated to work don’t involve confiscation etc.
Ban them!!! For the children. If it only saves one life.
I was. For 31 years. Many violent crimes would not have occurred if the offender was simply serving time for crimes already comitted and sentenced for.
Take the inner city kid (pick a race/color/ethnicity) who is slinging crack, carrying a stolen gun and driving a stolen car. His life span is in weeks - worse than cancer.
Some just need a controlled environment. A few for life, but the rest until they have that epiphany and the light comes on. That is how their lives are saved.
I appreciate the post (never talked to a US police officer other than you). But it’s just impossible to comment for me, it’s a whole other reality in the States.
We have great freedoms, but also great responsibilities. The tendency since the 1960s has been leniency. This has devolved to the point that violent criminals are removed from the streets for only short periods of time. Many are incapable (or unwilling) of regulating their behavior and so, need a controlled environment.
Case in point: In the county where I worked, one gang member decided to kill another. So, he did. When the Sheriff’s deputy showed up to investigate, he was also killed, as was the killer in the ensuing gunfight.
Had either or both of the gang members been incarcerated for crimes already committed, three lives could have been saved. Would they have been? Sadly, we will never know and we are left with three grieving families.
It’s an imperfect world. Despite what we read, incarceration saves lives.
Great idea, because only guns can kill people, right?
If there were no guns, people would find another way to take a life, or multiple lives.
Going beyond the scope of the topic is not productive. Gun violence is usually against someone the shooter knows.
And how are you going to do that? By sending men with guns to confiscate guns?
As benevolent as our government overlords may be, I’m not comfortable when I don’t get to be armed, but the people with a vested interest in my pocketbook can have all the firepower they want.
Be right back, I’m gonna go empty some AK mags.