Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1.) Repeal the 2nd Amendment, round up all the 300 million or so guns in the USA and disarm everybody everywhere.
2.) Provide security so that whenever some a-hole crazy gunman opens fire there will always be plenty of people shooting back. Increase safety training for gun owners and create a better vetting process for gun ownership to keep guns out of the hands of would-be mass-shooters. (Critical thing here is stopping the Dems from turning this into a "let's make it harder for the average American to buy a gun" which they're almost guaranteed to do.)
The first problem with option 1 is that you can't repeal the 2nd Amendment. You don't have 38 states willing to do it. The second problem is that there are just so many guns. Even if you can legally make them all contraband, you could never hope to find them all. And demand for more guns will create a sophisticated black market to smuggle them. So ultimately, you'd only disarm the law-abiding citizens.
The only good option is option 2. It can be done right now and there isn't anything standing in our way.
You can take the guns away from people AFTER no agent of the State has any weapons at all...nah even then you would have some animal running around stabbing people who needs to be shot...
Ok I've been convinced by the supreme intelligence and wisdom of the regulate crowd. So... Let's compromise.
All guns, including by, pellet, and paintball will be banned.
However, all people will be armed with a bladed weapon of choice (katana, gladius, Frankish axe, chakram) or maul, again by choice (hammer, mace, flail, morning star).
Additionally, a projectile (RPGs, law, 40mm grenade launcher) and explosive of ones choice will also be allowed (ied, c4, claymore, tnt, etc...).
Upon attack, only appropriate response can be used (blade to blade/maul). Against gov incursion, explosives and projectiles are appropriate.
Note: mortars, since they are both, will count as both. However a high capacity of ordinance will be allowed.
How can you prevent someone with a knife from committing a crime using a knife?
How can you prevent someone with a hammer from committing a crime using a hammer?
How can you prevent someone with a car from committing a crime using a car?
How can you prevent someone with a lighter from committing a crime using a lighter?
How can you prevent someone with a meth from committing a crime using a meth?
You don't do it by banning knives, hammers, cars and lighters from the 99% of people who aren't criminals do you.
Drugs kill more people than guns do every year and yet liberals constantly push to legalize drugs, clearly saving lives and preventing crime isn't what they really want.
what does it matter how many times someone used a gun to protect themselves? the purpose of owning a gun is to have it, and hopefully NEVER use it, except to punch holes in a paper target.
you cannot depend on the police to protect you, you have to take responsibility for your own defense.
There is nothing to fix. Self defense is a natural human right. If you want to fix violence in general you have to reshape our society which is completely ordered by only violence and aggression. From the government to the people who use it as their weapon of choice against their neighbor, every policy and law is an initiation of force upon the individual. From our brainwashing that it is "okay" for the state to use violence to impose our will on the "minority" it naturally transfers to people believing that it is okay for them also to use aggression and violence to get what they want. Until society and the "government" obey the non-aggression principle violence with or without guns will continue to escalate. The way our "government" and "society" is structured, we are all violent criminals, though we usually use government thugs to commit our crimes for us. And don't expect human freedom and morality to return any time soon as we are a collectivist/statist nation which can only exist with widespread violence and aggression against the people by the government and by the people against each other.
So the real answer is conservatives don't think that gun violence is a problem and in thinking such, shouldn't be addressed proactively...
How about punish people who commit violent crimes instead of reducing sentences and letting them out early.
We have a nice correlation between a dropping crime rate and a higher incarceration rate. It seems that when you lock up criminals they are not able to commit more crimes, imagine that.
How about punish people who commit violent crimes instead of reducing sentences and letting them out early.
We have a nice correlation between a dropping crime rate and a higher incarceration rate. It seems that when you lock up criminals they are not able to commit more crimes, imagine that.
Many people here aren't going to disagree with you that people that commit violent crimes should be punished. Sentencing isn't the point, preventing gun violence is. Instead of focusing on giving criminals the death penalty or life in prison for shooting someone to death we need to focus on preventing people from getting shot to death. Are you following me? Even if you lock someone up forever it's too late for the individual or group of people they killed.
What's the conservative solution, if gun regulation is off the table within your platform?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.