PDA

View Full Version : "GUN VIOLENCE" solutions


Ironchef
04-10-2008, 4:15 PM
Ok, this will be fun, I promise!

As if to play devil's advocate a little; I notice A L L O T of harshing on cops, DOJ, various city PDs, and plenty of County SOs, and allot of challenging of the ways and means our country/state/region/city/community deals with "gun violence." By "gun violence" I obviously mean the crimes committed with firearms used illegally to harm others.

...with all that said, I've never once seen a solution to it beyond "enforce the laws already in place" or "go after the bad guys" or my favorites "vote republican" and "join the NRA."

While these are all nice recommendations and suggestions, they don't really mean much do they. How about if we come up with solutions? Next time you hear "Hey, that liberal POS assemblyman is proposing a new law that requires registered firearms be taken to the ATF, disassembled, and inspected for defects once a year!", and instead of saying the obvious "O great, another gun law that targets the law abiding citizen.." say something like "I wish they'd create a law that [fill in your brilliant idea]!"

So I thought that if we sit down and really think about it, we, as Calgunners, could come up with some real solutions. I see Oakland asking residents for voluntary searches of homes for guns as a good effort, just not realistic.."but they're trying." I see that and think "surely the good and smart people of Calguns" can come up with better solutions.

So let's have it! Put your new LAW, new LE practice, new idea in "cyber-ink!" We already know Ignatius is a fan of these boards, let's give him an eyeful so he can take credit for it on the force at SFPD! Let him think up that great new plan that is arming the lawful citizens and disarming the baddies! Who cares as long as it's done, right?

yellowfin
04-10-2008, 4:23 PM
Get rid of the laws that are in CA which are not common to the Right to Carry states and try their method instead. Period. CA has tried anti's point of view and it's failed, so scrap it altogether. Adopt the same laws as Idaho or Wyoming or Maine where there's 1/100th of the crime. Stop being like a bum buying lotto tickets thinking that "Oh, this time it will work!" when that's exactly what you said the previous thousands of times. Drop the we've gotta save little Johnny sob stories. We've heard them.

Are you reading this, powers that be? Pay attention for a change.

Pointcrossed
04-10-2008, 4:36 PM
That would be a great Idea and I am sure it has been brought up before but liberalism is a mental disorder and no reasoning or amount of education that can get absorbed into the cerebrum of a liberal or past them to their political powers that be, this is because once a liberal has their elected powers they think they know better than anyone else and what their elected official says goes. And because of this the cities,counties,state,and nation is going to Scheisse really fast, and because of the way things are American society will end up destroying itself.

Most of this is from what I have read and heard from conservative media.

I felt safer when I was in the middle east than I am in my own home city and that is brutal honest truth, I wish I can go back.

Crazed_SS
04-10-2008, 4:45 PM
I'd use time, money, and effort that the government puts into anti-gun legislation and divert it towards social programs for young people. OMG LIBERAL SOCIALISM!*($! .. yea I know.. Violent crime is a social ill. For whatever reasons, certain people in society feel violence is the only way to gain respect or status in life. The situation will never get better until the real cause of the violent crime problem is addressed.

packnrat
04-10-2008, 5:16 PM
the only way that will work ...but the prisons are all ready over full.

the powers that be are letting some out early just to make room for more.

but true laws for "controlling" crime.

1: have a weapon while doing a crime + ten years to your time.

2: use a weapon while doing a crime +15 years.

3: someone gets hurt (for any reason) you get +20

4: someone dies you die.:eek:

5: NO parole. No early release. No sex--from the outside--.
and this + time is served before your time for the crime.

and these + items are for if anyone in your gang has/use said.

and when you get out,
NO welfare. NO ss payments. you are on your own.

and as far as jail goes, get a tooth acke the tooth just get pulled out.

med is done at a min amount.

and full time lock down is the norm....22 hours in a locked cage 10X10 with five others. with a big sign saying QUIET!

no books, no schooling, just getting warehoused to do your time then kicked out onto the streets.....they will keep your bed warm for your return.


.

.

Soldier415
04-10-2008, 5:30 PM
So let's have it! Put your new LAW, new LE practice, new idea in "cyber-ink!" We already know Ignatius is a fan of these boards, let's give him an eyeful so he can take credit for it on the force at SFPD!



Okay, here's one


IGGY! STAY AWAY FROM DESKS WHILE CARRYING!



;)

CCWFacts
04-10-2008, 6:01 PM
An easy one: serious jail time for criminals (prohibited persons) caught in possession of a firearm.

You would think that someone who is a gang member and convicted felon, when caught with a firearm, would spend many years in prison for that, but it doesn't happen.

bulgron
04-10-2008, 6:08 PM
Well, if it's liberals you want to convince, then go to the heart of the problem.

Eliminate the war on drugs. All true liberals want this anyway.

Almost always, when I hear about "gun violence," I know that it's really "illegal drug trade violence" which is brought on by prohibition.

End the prohibition, end the violence.

Simple.

Shotgun Man
04-10-2008, 6:11 PM
the only way that will work ...but the prisons are all ready over full.

the powers that be are letting some out early just to make room for more.

but true laws for "controlling" crime.

1: have a weapon while doing a crime + ten years to your time.

2: use a weapon while doing a crime +15 years.

3: someone gets hurt (for any reason) you get +20

4: someone dies you die.:eek:

5: NO parole. No early release. No sex--from the outside--.
and this + time is served before your time for the crime.

and these + items are for if anyone in your gang has/use said.

and when you get out,
NO welfare. NO ss payments. you are on your own.

and as far as jail goes, get a tooth acke the tooth just get pulled out.

med is done at a min amount.

and full time lock down is the norm....22 hours in a locked cage 10X10 with five others. with a big sign saying QUIET!

no books, no schooling, just getting warehoused to do your time then kicked out onto the streets.....they will keep your bed warm for your return.


.

.

Already, if you commit a specified felony with a gun (about anything that might involve a gun) you face 10-20-life. 10 if you use it, 20 if you discharge it, and 25-to-life if you injure someone. See PC 12022.53.

California is about as tough on crime as you can get. We don't need new laws increasing penalties and making up new crimes.

As far as the prisons being full, my personal opinion is that that is a direct result of us imprisoning folks who don't present a true threat to society for committing victimless or near-victimless crimes (i.e., drugs, stealing from walmart, etc.)

California's prison system is notoriously awful and harsh. Last I heard, it was on the brink of going into federal receivership for failing to provide medical services and being overcrowded. It is bordering on sadistic to suggest that we need to harshen the conditions in prison.

SvenFrost
04-10-2008, 6:30 PM
Step 1 - enforce immigration laws and tighten border security.

Step 2 - REQUIRE any LEO contacting an illegal alien (if its illegal activity, any cop should have a duty to stop it) to detain said illegal and turn them over to ICE for processing and return to country of origin.

Step 3 - deport all non-violent illegal aliens in U.S. prisons.

This would result in a near instant drop in crime, drug activity and gang activity.

Will it happen? Probably not, it is much easier and more politically advantageous to play the "blame game."

-Sven

LAK Supply
04-10-2008, 6:39 PM
How about just making people serve their sentences for their crimes, and getting rid of anti self-defense laws?

I was going through that Forbes list of top 10 most miserable cities (3 of which were in CA) and I noticed that about 80% of them (high crime was part of the "miserable" ranking) had very stiff anti self-defense laws. Interesting coincidence....

Crazed_SS
04-10-2008, 7:29 PM
How about just making people serve their sentences for their crimes, and getting rid of anti self-defense laws?

I was going through that Forbes list of top 10 most miserable cities (3 of which were in CA) and I noticed that about 80% of them (high crime was part of the "miserable" ranking) had very stiff anti self-defense laws. Interesting coincidence....

That wont work. First of all, it costs money to keep people locked up, but more importantly prison seems to make the crime problem worse. Since prisons do nothing to rehibilitate prisoners, inmates just come out as bigger and badder versions of their former selves. People go in, they're forced to join a prison gang, they connect with other like-minded people, they get out and now they're even more dangerous than before.

Crazed_SS
04-10-2008, 7:30 PM
Step 1 - enforce immigration laws and tighten border security.

Step 2 - REQUIRE any LEO contacting an illegal alien (if its illegal activity, any cop should have a duty to stop it) to detain said illegal and turn them over to ICE for processing and return to country of origin.

Step 3 - deport all non-violent illegal aliens in U.S. prisons.

This would result in a near instant drop in crime, drug activity and gang activity.

Will it happen? Probably not, it is much easier and more politically advantageous to play the "blame game."

-Sven

We actually tried "Step 3" .. we got MS-13 out of it.

mymonkeyman
04-10-2008, 7:42 PM
Most street crime is drug related, so repeal the drug ban laws. Obviously that has to happen on both the national and state levels, but it would help a lot.

Shall issue CCW would also help because robbers and other property-crime criminals are scared of getting shot.

A 100% crime reporting and enforcement policy in schools. A lot of these kids start young in their life of crime, primarily taught by their schoolmates, and they then further spread the criminal lifestyle to the younger students. This stuff just gets tolerated these days. (http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/10/teacher.beating/index.html) Kids who are in school and commit a crime (in school or not) should be immediately and indefinitely removed from the school, and entered into independent education (so they have no contact with other children in a learning environment). They can only come back if they are impeccable and doing well academically.

Make California Youth Authority (or what ever it is called now) a safe and viable rehabilitation choice. Again have a strict no-crime within CYA policy. If you commit a crime within CYA, you go to adult prison, confined to your cell with a mandatory minimum so long you won't be thinking about crime again. If you do not commit a crime in CYA, you get educated with the goal of returning back to a normal environment.

Crazed_SS
04-10-2008, 7:46 PM
Im actually more concerned about addicts than I am about dealers. Addicts cause all sorts of problems. Legalizing drugs might stop the fighting between dealers, but it will not stop Joe Methhead from breaking into your car and stealing your stereo so he can finance his next fix.

tyrist
04-10-2008, 8:13 PM
Im actually more concerned about addicts than I am about dealers. Addicts cause all sorts of problems. Legalizing drugs might stop the fighting between dealers, but it will not stop Joe Methhead from breaking into your car and stealing your stereo so he can finance his next fix.

Very true. However the dealers do alot of violent crimes but they are primarily against other dealers and users. Although some dabble in robbery and rape as well. Drug rehabilitation is also another thing that just does'nt work. It does'nt matter what they have available; they have to to decide to quit they cannot be forced by a judge to do it. The welfare and Social Security to convicted felons and parolees has to end. Your tax dollars are going to purchase drugs, which buy the guns, which are then used to rob and kill. Just put them on their own they are going to commit property crimes anyway giving them 600 bucks a month is'nt going to solve that.

CCWFacts
04-10-2008, 8:15 PM
Im actually more concerned about addicts than I am about dealers. Addicts cause all sorts of problems. Legalizing drugs might stop the fighting between dealers, but it will not stop Joe Methhead from breaking into your car and stealing your stereo so he can finance his next fix.

That's absolutely what it would stop from happening. Joe Methhead has to commit crimes because his habit costs in the hundreds of dollars a day. If drugs were legally available, an addiction would cost only a few dollars per day, no more than the price of a few aspirins. Remember, drugs are expensive only because they are illegal. Heroin, cocaine, etc, are no more expensive chemicals than aspirin. Addicts are paying prices because it's black market, not because the underlying chemical is expensive or difficult to produce.

Crazed_SS
04-10-2008, 8:30 PM
That's absolutely what it would stop from happening. Joe Methhead has to commit crimes because his habit costs in the hundreds of dollars a day. If drugs were legally available, an addiction would cost only a few dollars per day, no more than the price of a few aspirins. Remember, drugs are expensive only because they are illegal. Heroin, cocaine, etc, are no more expensive chemicals than aspirin. Addicts are paying prices because it's black market, not because the underlying chemical is expensive or difficult to produce.

The way I see it, It's still an addiction, and it's still a problem. It doesnt matter of hits of meth cost .50 at the local corner store. Once the methhead loses his job and ceases to be able to function in society due to his addiction, he will have to steal and rob to get money to continually support his drug use. You'd still have strung out junkies hanging out on the corner and women selling themselves to get their next fix.

eijjie33
04-10-2008, 8:42 PM
well if you ask me they (the goverment) should put up or make a liquidation squad to track down people who has long list of violent crimes any just bury them for good.i don't mean to be brutal,but lets face it violence for violence.i don't want to sound uncivilize but if they (felon/s) should continue to do what ever they want with complete disregard of the law i think that is justifyable

eijjie33
04-10-2008, 8:46 PM
common why should we the taxpayers should pay for their imprissonment.building new facilities just to be humane to felons and their needs,i say the goverment should use the taxpayers money for better things like cancer research and stuff instead of making the prisoners life in jail more comfortable.

CCWFacts
04-10-2008, 8:54 PM
The way I see it, It's still an addiction, and it's still a problem. It doesnt matter of hits of meth cost .50 at the local corner store. Once the methhead loses his job and ceases to be able to function in society due to his addiction, he will have to steal and rob to get money to continually support his drug use. You'd still have strung out junkies hanging out on the corner and women selling themselves to get their next fix.

It's still an addiction, it's still a problem. But drug addicts' crime needs are not to support their lives, it's to buy their drugs. Burger King for a day costs $10. Illegal drugs for a day cost $300 and up, which means they need to steal that much. Make the drugs legal and they would only need their $10 a day, not the $300.

Drug addicts' crime is to pay for their drugs, not the rest of life, and the expensive of the drugs is because they're illegal.

The question is simple: people who support the war on drugs think that the increased crime to pay for drugs is worth it, because eventually drug addiction and its related problems will be wiped out. The short-term crime increase is worth it because of the long-term wiping out of the crime. The people who oppose the drug war think that addiction won't be stopped by the drug war, and that the crime that's associated with addicts buying drugs is therefore not a worthwhile tradeoff.

Ironchef
04-10-2008, 10:15 PM
I was kind of hoping some would come up with ideas that they could present to liberal leaders of our state..knowing how they vote, how they think, etc. "Playing their game" as it were, would be the way to formulate the idea.

As a sarcastice example, tell them you'd support gay marriage if they allow CCW or something! lol

An idea I have, but have no idea how it'd be received, is to allow greater involvement or a more civilian integrated form of vigilance. For example, allow civilians to collect bounties on tips or information leading to arrests of BGs. We all know cops can't see 99.99% of crimes committed against people, but we see them, hear them, find out about them. If I have a violent neighbor who beats on his spouse, and that spouse is given the run around by police when she reports abuse...but doesn't have the proof...if you, a vigilant neighbor would add your testimony to the abused spouse, naturally it'd help. If there was some kind of bounty (taken from the bail or fine given to the offender) gained, people would rise to the occasion more.

If I live in an apartment complex and I know there's some teen neighbors who everyone's afraid of because of their violent behavior, threats, etc, and I know they're packing heat...I might be more inclined to snap pictures or video knowing I could make $200 if it got used "anonymously of course" in a trial that locked the kid up.

Anyway, I'm one for vigilante justice, but I guess that liberals don't want us degenerate, uneducated, and irresponsible gun nuts defending ourselves and others, so pay us money to be snitches! I'm tired of seeing news reports of the "drive-by" of the day in Oakland, and all these censored witnesses talk about how scared they are and don't give information to cops because of fear of reprisal. Well, that needs to end...

Riodog
04-10-2008, 10:40 PM
CCWFacts, The bottom line is-> these POS addicts, dealers,etc. are not worth the life of one LEO period. The people that are against the 'war on drugs' are just tired of DONATING money and subtracting from the lifestyle that everyone could have if we did not have to waste money on the scrum of our society.

In every civilization there is going to be a certain percentage of addicts, alcoholics, perverts, etc. There always has been but as the population increases so does the number of undesirables. Not only do the numbers increase to make them more visible but with the advanced state of our communications now everyone knows everything instantly.

EIJJIE33, I'm to the point of agreeing with you to an extent. Mark my words, there will be a time when the American people will get so fed up with the way things are going that they will rebell. There will be civil unrest because people that obey the laws will find that they are being taxed beyond reason to support the ones that do not go by the rules. This state is going to be the example for the rest of the country and right now it's like an upside-down pyramid. Sooner than later it will fall. The few can't support the many and shouldn't have to.

We, the people, that obey the laws and TRY and do what's right are getting really fed up by being "punished" by our own gov't for the deeds of the criminals. IGGY, if you spent half of your time going after the real criminals as you do (did) harassing the hell outta some small gundealer that forgot to cross a "T" then maybe you'd get the respect you deserve instead of the scorn you've earned.

All of these "wars on something" have cost far too many American lives and far too much of a financial burden for us to bear. I'm all for locking down the borders and cleaning house. I don't care where we start whether it's executing every SOB on death row or whether it's cutting off all financial programs to the lazy bastards that don't work for what they get.

After SCOTUS gets done 'interpreting' the 2nd amendment I move that we start a movement that limits their power. They should not have the power to override the WILL OF THE PEOPLE.

To end my rant. When all is said and done, we're going to have more people in prison than we can afford to support. I'm not willing to work my life away to keep some POS that is sponging off of the state. What about me and mine? Don't we count for anything?

We started out with nothing more than a Bill of Rights. What ever gave these arrogant POS politicians the idea that they were elected for the sole purpose of restricting and/or taking away those freedoms??? I say we vote every one of them that initiates a new law out of office at the next election. I don't give a rat's as* what party they're with as I'm a non-denominational hater.

Along with our Bill of Rights we also had the only laws we need. They're called the Ten Commandments.

JMHO,
Rio
ps...Disclaimer...This piece was written with consideration for our administrator. I tried to censor myself so as not to offend . However, I am offended by what this country, in particular this state, has turned out to be.

SvenFrost
04-10-2008, 10:51 PM
We actually tried "Step 3" .. we got MS-13 out of it.

See Steps 1 and 2.

-Sven

dragonbait1a
04-10-2008, 11:22 PM
My issue with Add on sentencing is that it can turn little non-violent, "Victimless" crimes into hard time. For Example, you CCW without a license and all the sudden you have a 10 year mandatory sentence for a crime with a gun involved. Or you give a ride to someone shoplifting (making you an accomplice) and have your rifle in the trunk. Or the cigar box of "inspiration" in the garage (maybe your teenaged kid or a friend left it there) and the home defense shotgun. Possession turns into mandatory time. Or you make a youthful mistake and "borrow" a friends car. and end up gunless for life.

We know that people who spend time in prison are more likely to end up back in prison. Prison is expensive. It'd be nice to keep people OUT of prison (unless they really need to be there). Is recording a football game or downloading Windows illegally really the same as Arson?

Turn misdemeanors/felonies that are "victimless" into infractions (or decriminalize them) and focus on the things that must be punished/prevented. Apply "reasonable" standards. Have a mechanism for returning rights to convicted people who demonstrate that they have become productive and useful citizens. In addition require responsibility for things done. You you get drunk/high and drive, or go in public armed you are endangering the public and FULLY responsible for any thing that happens.

And it's funny how the random gunowner with an NFA infraction gets up to 10 years and the rapper gets 1 year and community service talking about "Gunz R Bad." We gotta get better lawyers! :eek:

Just an opinion,

RGB

AKman
04-11-2008, 7:42 AM
Execute those convicted of committing a violent crime using a gun. This helps cut down on the rate of recidivism.

redneckshootist
04-11-2008, 8:06 AM
get rid of all victim less crime, bring back chain gangs and repeal all gun laws and drug laws too.

Mitch
04-11-2008, 9:00 AM
Im actually more concerned about addicts than I am about dealers. Addicts cause all sorts of problems. Legalizing drugs might stop the fighting between dealers, but it will not stop Joe Methhead from breaking into your car and stealing your stereo so he can finance his next fix.

Addicts only steal stuff because their drugs are expensive. How many rummies run around breaking into homes and cars to pay for their next fix?

Drugs are expensive only because they are illegal. Drug prohibition provides a huge financial incentive for illicit dealing as well as pushing (again, when was the last time anyone ever hung around a schoolyard trying to get kids to buy vodka?). It doesn't matter what the drug is, prohibition causes crime. Cf: the nationwide prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s.

Most of the homicide statistics are made up of young inner city men killing each other over drug territories. Something like 60% of the people in US prisons (and remember, we imprison more of our own people than any other industrial nation) are in for drug related crimes. The way our prisons work is someone convicted of a drug-related crime might not have been a real criminal when he entered prison, but he sure will be one by the time he gets out. So current policy actually grooms new criminals.

Get rid of drug prohibitions and cocaine will instantly drop in price to almost nothing (except for taxes) as RJ Reynolds and Philip Morris start manufacturing and marketing it for sale in your corner liquor store. Stuff like meth will disappear as there will no longer be a financial incentive for anyone to make it. Marijuana has never been a problem, ever. No one will waste their time hanging out at schoolyards trying to get kids hooked on legal drugs that don't cost very much to buy.

Of course, this doesn't eliminate all violent crime, but it is the single policy move that could be made that would result in a dramatic drop in violent crime in the US (like cutting it in half).

Of course, the huge War on Drugs industry would disappear too, which would be bad for (my) business.

Arbitrarily increasing sentencing won't have any effect on crime. We now imprison more people than ever before, more than anyone else, and the crime rate is starting to inch up. No correlation.

dfletcher
04-11-2008, 9:19 AM
I was kind of hoping some would come up with ideas that they could present to liberal leaders of our state..knowing how they vote, how they think, etc. "Playing their game" as it were, would be the way to formulate the idea.

As a sarcastice example, tell them you'd support gay marriage if they allow CCW or something! lol ........
Well, that needs to end...

Actually, I don't think that's as far fetched as it sounds. Perhaps someone who's not sneaking a few goofing off at work minutes can look up the specifics, but aren't states required to recognize the laws of other states? A driving license in one state is good in another, a marriage license issued in another state is recognized in another - that sort of thing? Well, you can be sure CA would want to recognize gay marriage laws in Massachusetts or New York or Rhode Island. Having done so how could they decline to recognize CCW laws of other states?

And BTW, can we stop calling it "Gun Violence" - a very deliberate attempt to blame the gun? I've never heard of events described as knife violence or baseball bat violence or Mothers Against Drunk Cars.

Prc329
04-11-2008, 9:25 AM
A lot of gun violence is coming from drugs. Take away the profitability of the drug trade by making it a legal and controllable substance ala alchohol and you eliminate a lot of crime and gun violence.

I grew up in Compton and North Long Beach where there is a big problem with guns and drugs. Most of the guns came in to play to protect the drugs and the money earned. I know a few cats that got shot over drugs or there "spot". Kill the drug laws, make it a legal and government regulated item like alcohol and you stop a majority of gun crime.

Mr. Mildot
04-11-2008, 9:35 AM
1)Wipe out every gun law on the books, especially trade regulations such as taxes, making firearms cheaper and more accessible to the general public.

2)encourage the victim population (us law abiding folks) to go about armed, have a warriors mentality, and actively fight against the idea of being bullied and victimized in our communities by no 'count thugs and drug pushers.

3)Declare an open season on gangbangers, pay a bounty for the leadership.

4)When you catch a murderer, expidite the trial and have him swinging from a lamppost in front of the courthouse about 72 hours after arrest.

5)When I got caught smoking by my dad as a teenager, he actually almost made me smoke the whole pack to make me sick off of them. I'd like to see drug pushers forced to injest whatever they are caught with.

6)Floggings a la Singapore, seems to get the point across.

7)Make prison really, really, reeeeeally uncomfortable, inconvenient and scary.

All in all, we need to make it more dangerous/life threatening and less profitable to engage in a life of crime.

dfletcher
04-11-2008, 9:36 AM
Addicts only steal stuff because their drugs are expensive. How many rummies run around breaking into homes and cars to pay for their next fix?

Drugs are expensive only because they are illegal. Drug prohibition provides a huge financial incentive for illicit dealing as well as pushing (again, when was the last time anyone ever hung around a schoolyard trying to get kids to buy vodka?). It doesn't matter what the drug is, prohibition causes crime. Cf: the nationwide prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s.

Most of the homicide statistics are made up of young inner city men killing each other over drug territories. Something like 60% of the people in US prisons (and remember, we imprison more of our own people than any other industrial nation) are in for drug related crimes. The way our prisons work is someone convicted of a drug-related crime might not have been a real criminal when he entered prison, but he sure will be one by the time he gets out. So current policy actually grooms new criminals.

Get rid of drug prohibitions and cocaine will instantly drop in price to almost nothing (except for taxes) as RJ Reynolds and Philip Morris start manufacturing and marketing it for sale in your corner liquor store. Stuff like meth will disappear as there will no longer be a financial incentive for anyone to make it. Marijuana has never been a problem, ever. No one will waste their time hanging out at schoolyards trying to get kids hooked on legal drugs that don't cost very much to buy.

Of course, this doesn't eliminate all violent crime, but it is the single policy move that could be made that would result in a dramatic drop in violent crime in the US (like cutting it in half).

Of course, the huge War on Drugs industry would disappear too, which would be bad for (my) business.

Arbitrarily increasing sentencing won't have any effect on crime. We now imprison more people than ever before, more than anyone else, and the crime rate is starting to inch up. No correlation.

I agree drugs are expensive because they are illegal. However, I think most people forget or set aside there was a time when drugs were perfectly legal in this country - heroin, cocaine and opium were readily and cheaply and legally available and it caused terrific problems.

When we speak of the problems illegal drugs cause and focus on the crime aspect, I think we dismiss the other problems such as disfunctional families and lost work and traffic accidents and whatever other problems can be caused by highly addictive substances. Making meth or coke or Special K or heroin or E more readily and cheaply available is bound to increase use.

The rejoinder to that is usually "Do you think some 40 year old who has never tried drugs their entire life will all of a sudden start just because it's legal?" No, probably not. But a 17 year old may, or someone in college may. And these are generally drugs you don't want to screw with - they are not of the "Hey that was fun to try" variety.

Finally, legalization will probably increase quality. You can easily chart meth addiction and purity - as purity rose & fell so did use & addiction.

I agree there's got to be a better way than relying on incarceration, but cheap & readily available higher quality drugs alone isn't it.

deleted by PC police
04-11-2008, 9:52 AM
Shut down the failure known as the war on drugs, Legalize and regulate it like alchol. Legalizing it will put Drug dealers and runners out of buisness, Taxes colected from users when they purchase drugs could lower the burden on normal folks. Use the same laws with regards to intoxication that are used with alcohol.

Shut down the failing fight against prostitution, legalize and regulate it. Prostitues would be tested for diseases, they could work in safer environements pimps would be out of buisness.

It's a real shame we learned nothing from prohibition.

If you murder someone the day after your last apeal you die. No waiting.

I would also like to see us adopt a two strikes rule.

California's prison system is notoriously awful and harsh. Last I heard, it was on the brink of going into federal receivership for failing to provide medical services and being overcrowded. It is bordering on sadistic to suggest that we need to harshen the conditions in prison. By who's standards? They have TV's, air conditioning, gameing consoles, gym's. Our prissons are a complete joke.

Prisoners should get only what is necesary to survive. Take out the tv's, take out the game consoles, take out the gyms. Give them food that tastes like cardboard and water. For enterainment they can either work out the old fashioned way(push ups, sit ups, running in place) or read. No congigal visits either.

Ironchef
04-11-2008, 10:43 AM
7)Make prison really, really, reeeeeally uncomfortable, inconvenient and scary.

All in all, we need to make it more dangerous/life threatening and less profitable to engage in a life of crime.

I watch the History channel allot and they've had several runs on prison gangs, the "AB" most commonly and I'm just baffled that the corrections systems "let's" this kind of culture exist. Prisons are so NOT controlled it's pathetic. Because of our lawyers and the regulation and beurocracy, etc, etc, there are sooo many protections and irrelevent considerations given to jailed felons. It was hard as hell to pay for my schooling, but if I go to jail, I can get various degrees. I can't afford comcast cable at my home, but my taxes make sure pedofiles and rapists can watch TV in the clink.

I'm all for the chain gang, the hard labor, the "SONA" version of jail as done in the tv show "Prison Break" where you just lock them all in together. No guards inside with prisoners..let them do the Lord of the Flies thing. Something, anything but what they have. I have no problem paying for prisons/corrections..but make them uncool. How many gangbangers improve their status for having been in and out of jail?

Mitch
04-11-2008, 10:57 AM
I agree drugs are expensive because they are illegal. However, I think most people forget or set aside there was a time when drugs were perfectly legal in this country - heroin, cocaine and opium were readily and cheaply available and it caused terrific problems.

And you don't think they are causing problems now even when they are illegal?

The rejoinder to that is usually "Do you think some 40 year old who has never tried drugs their entire life will all of a sudden start just because it's legal?" No, probably not.

Here, I started a poll. How many Calgunners would start using drugs just because they were legal? (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=95954)

But a 17 year old may, or someone in college may. And these are generally drugs you don't want to screw with - they are not of the "Hey that was fun to try" variety.

And you are suggesting they aren't already doing that now?

Any 17-year-old who is interested in trying illegal drugs can go ahead and try them, no problem at all. And they do. The ones who aren't interested, don't.

And without the financial incentive that prohibition brings, there will be no one, except maybe Joe Camel, pushing the kids to try the drugs in the first place.

This sounds a lot like the sex education arguments, this notion that if we just don't mention sex in polite company, hormone-crazed teens will find something else to do with their time.

The gun rights community is a strange place. We spend so much energy making arguments about how gun prohibitions simply cannot work, yet continue to express a childlike faith in the efficacy of other prohibitions that are just as doomed to failure.

Ironchef
04-11-2008, 11:13 AM
Isn't Holland a country where our illegal drugs are legal? And what is to learn from that example? Is there drug dealers still (illegal)?

Stunt_Pirate
04-11-2008, 11:17 AM
Well, if you malnourish the violent felons/sex offenders and don't let them exercise at all, they won't physically be able to do much after prison. Turn them into future victims.

It's really too bad we don't have another Australia we can dump them. The only cost would be the occasional raft roundup.

I really have no valid solutions and don't expect that there is something that can fix terrible/non-existant parenting, poverty and exposure to gangs and violence from an early age, aside from restructuring our society. The only thing that can ultimately fix the problem is prevention, not response IMHO. It is like the situation overseas (Israel/Palestine...etc) it's a never-ending cycle of violence and revenge.

mymonkeyman
04-11-2008, 11:31 AM
Actually, I don't think that's as far fetched as it sounds. Perhaps someone who's not sneaking a few goofing off at work minutes can look up the specifics, but aren't states required to recognize the laws of other states? A driving license in one state is good in another, a marriage license issued in another state is recognized in another - that sort of thing? Well, you can be sure CA would want to recognize gay marriage laws in Massachusetts or New York or Rhode Island. Having done so how could they decline to recognize CCW laws of other states?

And BTW, can we stop calling it "Gun Violence" - a very deliberate attempt to blame the gun? I've never heard of events described as knife violence or baseball bat violence or Mothers Against Drunk Cars.

A CCW is a license issued by a state specifically intended to apply only to the state. However, a marriage is a change in the status between people, not intended to be limited to one state, and has the effect of a legal judgment: binding other states under the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution to respect the marriage as it would under its own laws. "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."

However, Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to arguably invoke its power to "prescribe ... the Effect thereof." Congress prescribed that same-sex marriage do not have to be recognized by other states. California has done so in statute. DOMA also prevented same-sex marriages from being recognized under Federal law. California exercised this authority via Prop 22 in 2000, which prohibited recognizing any same-sex marriage.

However, since then California has instituted registered domestic partnerships. Even more importantly for the topic at hand, the legislature has passed a bill to allow same-sex marriage, in 2005, but Schwarzenegger vetoed it. Nothing has changed that would prevent the legislature from passing it again. The only incentive pro-gun people could give is to either A) give enough votes to override Schwarzenegger's veto unlikely to happen because many of the holdouts are diehard conservatives opposed to it on moral grounds or B) get Schwarzenegger to help which is even less likely because Schwarzenegger likes gun control. It's just not a viable plan.

scewper
04-11-2008, 11:32 AM
I think we should just maroon all those violent criminals/lifers to some island in the pacific. I'm sure the cost of one parachute and a plane to fly a bunch out there would be far less than to keep them in our prison system. They could fend for themselves. It would be like that movie The Condemned except freedom would not be the prize. Maybe our state could even make money from it by filming it as a "reality show" on FOX? Okay maybe it is exactly like the movie, but what are the cons? (except for not being politically correct) As for the other prisoners... like some others mentioned bringing back chain gangs.

Crazed_SS
04-11-2008, 11:32 AM
Does everyone here stop reading The Constitution after the 2nd Amendment?


Eighth Amendment - Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted

Ironchef
04-11-2008, 11:41 AM
Does everyone here stop reading The Constitution after the 2nd Amendment?

What's so cruel and unusual about manual labor? We force ourselves to exercise all the time! lol

Crazed_SS
04-11-2008, 12:12 PM
Many prison still have manual labor. Im referring to the other bizzaro suggestions like


I think we should just maroon all those violent criminals/lifers to some island in the pacific. I'm sure the cost of one parachute and a plane to fly a bunch out there would be far less than to keep them in our prison system

.. and I dont know where everyone is getting the idea that prison is some kind of cakewalk. Anyone here watch Lockup on National Geographic and MSNBC? Just from watching a couple of those shows, I have determined I never want to be anywhere near a prison or jail. The CA ones were the worst. LA Country Jail was like a madhouse and the prisons like San Quentin and Pelcican were freakin Medieval

CCWFacts
04-11-2008, 12:21 PM
I agree drugs are expensive because they are illegal.

Yes, that's a fact, and it's important to understand that fact, no matter what your views are.

However, I think most people forget or set aside there was a time when drugs were perfectly legal in this country - heroin, cocaine and opium were readily and cheaply available and it caused terrific problems.

They did, no doubt. They were doing crazy stuff like selling wine with cocaine in it, baby syrups with morphine, etc. People had no idea about the dangers and were getting quite addicted and suffering the consequences.

That's why I put it in terms of two belief options:

Belief 1: The War on Drugs drives up the price, meaning an addict needs to get his hands on $300 or more per day to support his needs. In the short-term, this makes addicts steal things, prostitute themselves, sell drugs in front of schools, etc, so there's a short-term downside. The other short-term downside is increased law enforcement expenditures and loss of our civil liberties. Long-term, it's all worth it because we'll win the war on drugs, wipe out drug use, and be able to cut budgets back and restore civil liberties. There's an "end point" to the whole thing and we'll have the best of all worlds when we get to this endpoint: no addicts, no drug war, and our civil liberties back.

Belief 2: The war on drugs will never be won. Addiction rates are not changed one way or the other by law enforcement or drug prices. We're spending a lot of money and giving up civil liberties and we'll never reach an end-point of drugs being wiped out. The "short-term costs" are not short-term, they are on-going and endless, and therefore, not worth it. Cost to society would be lower to just let addicts have their drugs and suffer whatever the consequences are. At least they won't be needing to rob us to pay for stuff, because their "daily need budget" will be $3 instead of $300. A methhead could collect aluminum cans for 20 hours a day if that would pay for his habit, so let him do it.

The fact is, the War on Drugs has gone on for 30 years, with ever increasing budgets, police powers, rates of incarceration, and yet... drugs are as available as ever.

Arguing for Belief 1, if drugs were more available and cheaper, you could expect use to go up.

One underlying question is, is propensity to use drugs an innate quality (genetic perhaps), or is it a choice? If it's an innate propensity, then probably no amount of drug war is going to help. If it's a choice, then making drugs less available will help. Getting a good answer to this question is important because it would shape our policy decisions.

When we speak of the problems illegal drugs cause and focus on the crime aspect, I think we dismiss the other problems such as disfunctional families and lost work and traffic accidents and whatever other problems can be caused by highly addictive substances. Making meth or coke or Special K or heroin or E more readily and cheaply available is bound to increase use.

If drug abuse is an innate propensity, then availability or lack of availability won't change anything. If it's a choice, then yes, availability will make all the difference. I don't know the answer to the "is it innate" question. For myself, I knew that if there were drugs freely available on every corner, I would have no interest. Right here by my computer I have a bottle of whiskey that's covered in dust; I like it only rarely. The whole thing has little innate appeal to me. But that's just an anecdote, not an answer.

I agree there's got to be a better way than relying on incarceration, but cheap & readily available higher quality drugs alone isn't it.

What's worse than incarceration is revolving-door incarceration, where we have a bunch of addicts, and we have to deal with them robbing us.

Taking a higher level view, we must honestly evaluate all kinds of policies, whether it's the War on Drugs, or Social Security, or whatever. We need to have clear goals, and clear criteria for determining how well we are doing, and we need to apply those criteria and see where we are on a regular basis. We're over-due for doing a real, honest, open evaluation of the goals, costs, benefits, and progress in the War on Drugs.

mymonkeyman
04-11-2008, 12:25 PM
What's worse than incarceration is revolving-door incarceration, where we have a bunch of addicts, and we have to deal with them robbing us.


This is one of the most important problems with the War on Drugs. We don't have the resources to incarcerate as many people for as long as the law says to. Also, in many cases, drug crimes have longer sentences than crimes of violence and property crimes. What this means is that your average rapist, child molester, assaulter, batterer, robber, burglar, etc. gets out of jail far earlier because we have to make room to give druggies some time in jail.

dfletcher
04-11-2008, 12:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfletcher

I agree drugs are expensive because they are illegal. However, I think most people forget or set aside there was a time when drugs were perfectly legal in this country - heroin, cocaine and opium were readily and cheaply available and it caused terrific problems.

And you don't think they are causing problems now even when they are illegal?

Quote:
The rejoinder to that is usually "Do you think some 40 year old who has never tried drugs their entire life will all of a sudden start just because it's legal?" No, probably not.

Here, I started a poll. How many Calgunners would start using drugs just because they were legal?

Quote:
But a 17 year old may, or someone in college may. And these are generally drugs you don't want to screw with - they are not of the "Hey that was fun to try" variety.

And you are suggesting they aren't already doing that now?

Any 17-year-old who is interested in trying illegal drugs can go ahead and try them, no problem at all. And they do. The ones who aren't interested, don't.

And without the financial incentive that prohibition brings, there will be no one, except maybe Joe Camel, pushing the kids to try the drugs in the first place.

This sounds a lot like the sex education arguments, this notion that if we just don't mention sex in polite company, hormone-crazed teens will find something else to do with their time.

The gun rights community is a strange place. We spend so much energy making arguments about how gun prohibitions simply cannot work, yet continue to express a childlike faith in the efficacy of other prohibitions that are just as doomed to failure.
__________________
Mitch's opinions do not necessarily represent the views of Mesa Tactical.

Sorry, not much on computers so I had to cut & paste.

I never suggested we don't have severe problems. I don't agree with the single minded "toss them in jail" approach. But if you think legalizing is going to produce great results and not a whole separate set of different problems I think you are wrong. Yes, 17 year olds and college students try drugs. I know I did and suspect many others here approaching middle age to old fartdom did the same. But will making drugs legal and more readily available and cheaper and the item most often left out of this equation, more pure and more potent make things better?

I don't know about others, but whether or not something was legal or not helped keep me in line when I was younger. Does legalizing make it more likely or less likely that a kid on the fence will say yes or no?

Quality and price points and availability matter when selling any product, I'd include drugs in that equation. If we're going to discuss drugs as a product, let's do it across the board and apply the same laws of supply and demand and advertising.

Mitch
04-11-2008, 12:36 PM
If we're going to discuss drugs as a product, let's do it across the board and apply the same laws of supply and demand and advertising.

That's how I'd do it, just like cigarettes and alcohol (and I confess to being a regular user of alcohol, which has destroyed more lives than cocaine or heroin, by an order of magnitude at least).

The central problem with the drug business is how it is underground, a black market. Bring it out of the shadows.

StukaJr
04-11-2008, 12:40 PM
There should be a cultural experiment of banning socks - instituting a mandated time period for every citizen to surrender their socks or face felony charges if found in possession of socks after the date... Will criminal enterprises switch to contraband socks for profit and law enforcement agency created to control the illegal manufacturing and distribution of socks? Will CIA be rumored to be complicit in shipments of tons of socks on unmarked planes and then deny in doing so... Will local law enforcement go on raids of suspected homes with illegal socks in them every time there is a rise in Sock violence?

I know it's ridiculous, but a lot of stuff that used to be banned is now common commodity and the stuff that was common commodity is now banned... But if something is in demand in illegal - criminal enterprises will make it their profit cow.

So keep violence illegal - since there is little profit in it.

UBFRAGD
04-11-2008, 5:52 PM
>>heroin, cocaine and opium were readily and cheaply and legally available and it caused terrific problems.

Just thought that was terrifically funny.

Non-denominational hater, indeed, riodog. I about fell out of my chair with your rant. What a great thread.

I was listening to the news on SF TV 2 when I read this and they mentioned Arnie signing on some bucks for more prisons.....watch the media circus news programs while reading 2nd amend. issues on calguns it's the only way to stay sane.......

LECTRIKHED
04-11-2008, 7:25 PM
Abortion

Satex
04-11-2008, 9:48 PM
By "gun violence" I obviously mean the crimes committed with firearms used illegally to harm others.

...with all that said, I've never once seen a solution to it beyond "enforce the laws already in place" or "go after the bad guys" or my favorites "vote republican" and "join the NRA."


You can start by not using the brainwash terms such as "gun violence". There is no such thing as "gun violence", there is however "violence". Eliminate the "violence" and you have eliminated the so called "gun violence".

Why is enforcing law not the solution?

jacques
04-11-2008, 10:21 PM
I would say that the first step would have to be to have Pro 2nd amendment, (not just 2nd but pro-all amendments) groups ban together,

2nd would be to voice our opinions at rallies, demonstrations and public forums that give a clear, non polluted version of our stance that convinces a lot more of the public to join in to regain our constitutional rights. This would have to be a very strong showing.

3rd would be to target these leftist politicians and have them removed from office pronto.

4th, change the laws.

The point being, until these politicians are removed, nothing will change.

Ech0Sierra
04-11-2008, 11:35 PM
My honest theory: Send them to some deserted pacific island.
My sadistic theory: Roman Gladiator-esque combat, except with high explosives, automatic weapons, on a deserted island that has been heavily landmined and is very far from the rest of civilization. Supply the survivors with food, water and supplies and wait for everyone to kill each other or themselves.
ETA: Wire cameras all over the island and broadcast the whole thing every day on Fox.

24thMED
04-12-2008, 12:42 AM
The problem is that we are trying to apply logic(laws) to a very emotional subject. I think we can all agree that laws are not the answer. Social programs might be but it will take generations to change the mindset of the gun control crowd.

The gun haters have done an admirable job of promoting animism and getting their followers to believe that the gun, not the person using it, is bad. This is the root of the problem, IMHO.

Everyone who picks a side in this debate has an emotional reason for doing so... I passionately believe that I should have the right to defend myself and my family and if I want to use a gun to do that, I should have that choice. On the other side of the coin you have someone who only sees the tragedy of what some nut case with a gun can cause. Their first instinct is do something that will prevent it from happening again. And deep down a fear of it happening to them(if it didn't already). They know they can't control the person that commited the act(as everyone does...) but they can try to do something about the tool(gun) he/she used to commit the act.

This is the sheeple mentality and it is what has to change. Unfortunatly, I don't know how to get a society of free thinkers(?) to agree on that. Our best defense is to keep fighting the little battles and try to make our lawmakers see the futility and and utter waste of process and tax dollars more gun laws will be...

There is no panacea for this issue.

So what to do... I think it's been said here before on more than one occasion, we must keep fighting the inane laws, use our votes to speak for our rights, and educate the sheeple on gun ownership.

I don't know, this is just my opinion, I could be wrong...

yellowfin
04-12-2008, 8:36 AM
How to get public opinion to change? By actually meeting the bad ideas head on, taking them out into the open, and destroying them. Right now there is a glut of information from one side, but insufficient competition of ideas from us. They get the bad message all the time nonstop, but rarely hear from us. One on one, person to person is a good way to go about it as individuals, but we need a mass marketing campaign as well.

deleted by PC police
04-12-2008, 8:48 AM
Many prison still have manual labor. Im referring to the other bizzaro suggestions like Quote:
I think we should just maroon all those violent criminals/lifers to some island in the pacific. I'm sure the cost of one parachute and a plane to fly a bunch out there would be far less than to keep them in our prison system


Whats wrong with that?? That's how Australia started out. I could be wrong but it appears to have worked.



.. and I dont know where everyone is getting the idea that prison is some kind of cakewalk. Anyone here watch Lockup on National Geographic and MSNBC? Just from watching a couple of those shows, I have determined I never want to be anywhere near a prison or jail. The CA ones were the worst. LA Country Jail was like a madhouse and the prisons like San Quentin and Pelcican were freakin Medieval

Documentries show you what they want to show. Just ask the honerable Micheal Moore.

jacques
04-12-2008, 10:28 AM
Whats wrong with that?? That's how Australia started out. I could be wrong but it appears to have worked.


Didn't Australia Ban guns?

Crazed_SS
04-12-2008, 12:09 PM
Whats wrong with that?? That's how Australia started out. I could be wrong but it appears to have worked.


Once again, do you realize there are 10 Amendments in the Bill of Rights?

Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted


Documentries show you what they want to show. Just ask the honerable Micheal Moore.

Ask BWO about LA County Jail.

I can assure you it wasnt the resort you guys think it is.

deleted by PC police
04-12-2008, 12:56 PM
Once again, do you realize there are 10 Amendments in the Bill of Rights?

Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted

Puting someone on an island and making them fend for themselves Is not cruel and Unusual punishment. They have the option to work and make a life for themselves or be lazy and worthless and starve to death. Kinda like normal people do. IMO that's less cruel than spending your life in a 10x10 box.

Ask BWO about LA County Jail.

I can assure you it wasnt the resort you guys think it is.

It's obviously not that bad if people are commiting crimes when they get out knowing that if they get caught they are going back.