Three Real Ways to Reduce “Gun Violence” in America? Question of the Day

6 Real Ways We Can Reduce Gun Violence in America the once deeply conservative time.com promises. Not to put too fine a point on it, Sean Gregory, Chris Wilson, Alice Park and Alic Jenkins offer Time readers the same sh*t in a different wrapper. Here are the fearsome foursome’s proposals . . .

1. Buying a gun should be like buying a car — “Lawmakers can learn lessons from auto safety. To start, they can put in effect more rigorous requirements for owning firearms. “For the most part, it is much easier to be a legal gun owner in America than it is to be a legal driver,” says David Hemenway, director of the Injury Control Research Center at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.”

2. Pass gun laws that actually reduce gun violence – “Researchers are also finding links between right-to-carry laws–which require governments to issue concealed-carry permits to citizens who meet certain requirements–and spikes in firearms crime. A 2017 National Bureau of Economic Research working paper estimates that 10 years after the adoption of right-to-carry laws, violent crime is 13% to 15% higher than it would have been without those policies.”

3.  Doctors can help reduce gun violence. Let them – “Doctors say such gag laws and restrictions hamper their ability to discuss issues that can affect patient safety; after all, they talk about the dangers of smoking or of not wearing a seat belt in a car. “My role is not to be judgmental,” says Dr. Joseph Wright, chair of the committee on emergency medicine for the AAP. “We are asking about and providing information about what science has demonstrated as the most effective ways to keep children safe in homes with guns.”

4.  Invest in smart gun technology – “All the pieces appear to be in place. The safety technology is available. Entrepreneurs have introduced products that use biometrics to identify a weapon’s rightful owner while locking it for everyone else. Such smart guns may not prevent mass shootings with firearms purchased legally. But they can prevent crimes or suicides with weapons owned by somebody else. They can also cut down on accidental shootings. According to the CDC, an average of 500 people are shot to death unintentionally every year.”

5.  Eliminate funding restrictions on gun violence research – “Some states are trying to pick up the slack. California recently opened the nation’s first state-funded firearms-violence research center, on the Sacramento campus of the University of California, Davis. Such investments are urgent as the failure to find answers carries a steep cost. “People are dead today,” says Dr. Garen Wintemute, director of the new center, “as a result.”

6. End illegal immunity for gun manufacturers – “No one benefits from frivolous lawsuits. But holding manufacturers liable for the misuse of their products, experts say, would incentivize them to make firearms safer. “If pillows caused fatalities at that level, those companies would be bankrupt,” says Fleegler of Boston Children’s Hospital. “If there were 500 deaths a year associated with any consumer product, it would be banned, regulated, fixed. But here, nothing.”

Let’s see . . . driving’s not a right, carry laws decrease crime, docs should stay in their wheelhouse (but if they don’t it’s a free country), talk to New Jersey about smart guns, the current CDC research regs only ban gun control advocacy, and gunmakers’ legal immunity is no different than carmakers’.

That’s #enough of that.

So what could America do to reduce “gun violence” without dinging its citizens’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms?

comments

  1. avatar pwrserge says:

    You want to reduce “gun violence”? Send the Marines after the drug slinging gangbangers infesting our cities like rats. 80% of all homicides in the US are gang or drug related.

    1. avatar JasonM says:

      So let’s just throw out all of the protections of our republic and turn into a military junta?
      Q: How does pwrserge count to ten?
      A: 2…Done.

      1. avatar 2004done says:

        Jason M [in reply to pwrserge]: I disagree that an attack on pwrserge’s post will have ANY effect on “gun violence.” Was that your only suggestion?

      2. avatar pwrserge says:

        Hardy a military junta. The posse comitatus act does not apply to the USMC or the Navy for a reason. The reality is that the only reason we have the violent crime rate we do is that the left wing wants it that way. They deliberately undermine the rule of law in order to keep their voter plantations under the boots of their pet thugs.

        The simple solution is to sweep the gangs with a massive operation and charge them under federal statutes. Then lock them up and make them serve the full terms of their sentences. Hell, the overwhelming majority of these criminals could be charged with simple “felon in possession of a firearm” under the GCA. That’s a 10 year sentence per count.

        If you’re not comfortable with sending in Marines… you could always federalize the National Guard and get the same effect.

        1. avatar little horn says:

          thats a literal police state you incredible hypocrite.

        2. avatar Kroglikepie says:

          ^ No it’s not you incredible moron.

        3. avatar JasonM says:

          This is hardly the first “ignore due process” themed post of yours.
          If we send in the Marines, a group trained to kill targets, not arrest them after obtaining a valid warrant, to go after gangs, we’d be ignoring almost all the liberties guaranteed by the bill of rights. Using military units as police forces rarely works out well.

        4. avatar H says:

          Arresting every 18-25 yr old white male is the only way to end school shootings. 🙂

          Statistics speak don’t they?
          Hmmmmm?

          Okay let’s go full Bloomberg and arrest every 18-25 yr old black male too.

          Look ma no gun violence. Almost.

          Oh, if you were going to commit suicide could you one, don’t or two, choose another way please? Our figures have to balance by year end.

        5. avatar Hank says:

          It’s not unconstitutional to use military force to reclaim lost sovereign territory to rebellious thugs. Because that’s what the gangs are. They are an organized violent threat waging war on the US population while also claiming US territory as theirs, and in fact tax, yes you read that right, they tax the locals they occupy. The state and federal governments have every legal justification to use military force to put down the insurgency. And if what Lincoln did was precedent, it will be very brutal and effective.

        6. avatar Indiana Tom says:

          The reality is that the only reason we have the violent crime rate we do is that the left wing wants it that way. They deliberately undermine the rule of law in order to keep their voter plantations under the boots of their pet thugs.
          Well….he got that part right.

        7. avatar pwrserge says:

          Nobody gives a shit about “school shootings” they are so rare as to be statistically irrelevant. This is why we don’t set national policy by popular vote. The average voter is too drunk, stoned, or stupid to actually weigh the costs or benefits of any particular action. (One of the many reasons I think we need to seriously roll back who gets to vote.) You can’t free a fish from water.

      3. avatar Klaus Von Schmitto says:

        Yes – For about a month. After the gangbangers are dead and the communists have fallen out of helicopters, everything should be fine and we can call off the dogs.

    2. avatar anonymous says:

      1. Buying a gun should be like buying a car — “Lawmakers can learn lessons from auto safety. To start, they can put in effect more rigorous requirements for owning firearms. “For the most part, it is much easier to be a legal gun owner in America than it is to be a legal driver,” says David Hemenway, director of the Injury Control Research Center at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.”

      Silly response. I can buy a used car with no paperwork, background check, or insurance of any kind. In fact, with zero traceability whatsoever, as long as I keep it off the public road. I could buy custom cars with aftermarket accessories, or completely engineered from the ground up. Translated to the gun realm, that I means I can have machine guns, tanks, grenades, rocket launchers, as long as I keep them on my private property. So I don’t believe this was the analogy that gun haters were looking for, and they lacked the basic cognitive ability to adequately produce a decent analogy.

      Also, not interested in persuasion by ethos by means of David Hemenway. Sorry. Logic is greater than Hemenway’s credibility.

      And no. I’m not going to buy insurance, and registration, and yearly registration fees, for my firearms, or my kitchen knives, or my gas can in the garage. And most certainly not, so I can keep them on my private property. Insane people.

      2. Pass gun laws that actually reduce gun violence – “Researchers are also finding links between right-to-carry laws–which require governments to issue concealed-carry permits to citizens who meet certain requirements–and spikes in firearms crime. A 2017 National Bureau of Economic Research working paper estimates that 10 years after the adoption of right-to-carry laws, violent crime is 13% to 15% higher than it would have been without those policies.”

      Disagree with the premise. Gun laws for gun violence? Aren’t we over categorizing things here? Are we going to call explosions explosion violence? stabbings, stabbing violence? Death by baseball bat, baseball bat violence? Of course not. Because it’s retarded and silly. The issue is violence. When someone dies, who cares about the method? Why does the method matter more than the act itself? With that said, the act itself is already illegal. So anything more isn’t morality based laws – they are social engineering laws. You want a gun law that works? Teach your children values, morals, and not to kill people. Everyone needs to focus on their kids, not on my guns.

      3. Doctors can help reduce gun violence. Let them – “Doctors say such gag laws and restrictions hamper their ability to discuss issues that can affect patient safety; after all, they talk about the dangers of smoking or of not wearing a seat belt in a car. “My role is not to be judgmental,” says Dr. Joseph Wright, chair of the committee on emergency medicine for the AAP. “We are asking about and providing information about what science has demonstrated as the most effective ways to keep children safe in homes with guns.”

      I tend to agree that gag orders on doctor’s isn’t a correct action. But neither is pompous conceited doctors educating the impoverished plebs on why they shouldn’t have guns, while they live in their gated communities, and work in guarded buildings. Everything in my house is my responsibility. Not just protecting toddlers from guns, but from the stairs, the pool, the house hold chemicals, buckets filled with water, etc etc. That doctors would focus on guns and not much else, is more than irritating. The gag order solely exists, because of their anti-gun animosity. Not because they care about anyone.

      4. Invest in smart gun technology – “All the pieces appear to be in place. The safety technology is available. Entrepreneurs have introduced products that use biometrics to identify a weapon’s rightful owner while locking it for everyone else. Such smart guns may not prevent mass shootings with firearms purchased legally. But they can prevent crimes or suicides with weapons owned by somebody else. They can also cut down on accidental shootings. According to the CDC, an average of 500 people are shot to death unintentionally every year.”

      Smart guns suck. I’m an electrical engineer. I have a degree in electrical and computer engineering. If I wanted, I could build my own smart gun. However, if any of my guns had electronics in them, I would remove them. Because to an engineer, the best solution is the simplest solution. Guns are incredibly simple machines. Anything you add to them increases their complexity and reduces their reliability. No thanks.

      I don’t care if somebody else has a smart gun. The problem is the state, and intolerant people with opinions, want to force things on me. And I don’t want a smart gun.

      5. Eliminate funding restrictions on gun violence research – “Some states are trying to pick up the slack. California recently opened the nation’s first state-funded firearms-violence research center, on the Sacramento campus of the University of California, Davis. Such investments are urgent as the failure to find answers carries a steep cost. “People are dead today,” says Dr. Garen Wintemute, director of the new center, “as a result.”

      No one is eliminating funding on restrictions for “insert method here” violence. The CDC was, in effect, kept from researching it. But that is because the researchers said things like “We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths. We’re doing the most we can do, given the political realities.” In other words, they had an agenda. An agenda to push their views, opinions, and intolerance on me. No thanks. Companies and universities everywhere are welcome to research explosion violence, or baseball bat violence, or knife violence, or car violence, or gun violence. Whatever.

      6. End illegal immunity for gun manufacturers – “No one benefits from frivolous lawsuits. But holding manufacturers liable for the misuse of their products, experts say, would incentivize them to make firearms safer. “If pillows caused fatalities at that level, those companies would be bankrupt,” says Fleegler of Boston Children’s Hospital. “If there were 500 deaths a year associated with any consumer product, it would be banned, regulated, fixed. But here, nothing.”

      No. This was Clinton’s plan in the 90s to crush gun manufacturers into complying with whatever was wanted by means of law-suiting them into bankruptcy if they didn’t comply. In other words. Targeted social justice by means of frivolous lawsuits. So again. An agenda was in place. It wasn’t about safety. It was about subjugation of firearm manufacturers. No thanks.

      The statement about “holding manufacturer’s liable for the misuse of their products” shouldn’t be incentive for anything. Anyone, anywhere, can misuse anyone else’s product in an illegal manner. Further, manufacturer’s products are about as safe as they can get already. This shouldn’t be an argument about firearms need to be safe. Because they aren’t. They are for the user, about as safe as they are going to get. But it is not the manufacturer’s fault, who makes shovels, when someone gets knocked over the head by one and then buried. Should they be open to lawsuits? Should a wood chipper company be open to lawsuits if a body is disposed of in a criminal manner? Of course not. This entire argument is completely devoid of any real integrity, any real ethics or fairness for manufacturers. It’s pathetic that this law protecting firearms companies is even needed at all.

      People need to focus on making higher quality people, that live quality lives, not laws. Laws do not a higher quality people make. They only crush the freedom of everyone to the lowest common denominator.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        “If there were 500 deaths a year associated with any consumer product, it would be banned, regulated, fixed. But here, nothing.”

        Really?

        Over 500 a year are killed by drunk drivers, nobody sues Budweiser or Jack Daniels…

        1. avatar Anonymous says:

          Yeah. These are like, people from a different planet. How can I relate to them at all?

          “If pillows caused fatalities at that level, those companies would be bankrupt,” says Fleegler of Boston Children’s Hospital. “If there were 500 deaths a year associated with any consumer product, it would be banned, regulated, fixed. But here, nothing.”

          People are murdering people with pillows, is there common sense pillow control, or are we going to make a special category called “pillow violence?” This is what i’m talking about. And in the end, they prove they are unreasonable, or at least incapable of reason. There are hundreds of millions of people in the US, Billions worldwide. Plenty of them are dying accidentally with products, and plenty more by misuse of those products. YET! They still think that the manufacturer should be held liable. It’s insane. How can I debate against such insanity and such ignorance.

          I call it socialism of responsibility. Some people are too responsible and some people aren’t enough. So we should obviously (by means of marxism/socialism) make those who shouldn’t be responsible for something, partially responsible for it. And we are going to shame them with terms like “enabler.” So when you sell something to someone else and they did something bad with what you sold them, you enabled them. Never mind that it makes no logical sense. Ignore that. Also, because they *might* do something bad with your stuff that you manufactured, we need regulations on YOU! Not them, YOU! You need to be held liable for what they do. Socialism for responsibility. Equality.

      2. avatar Tom in NC says:

        Very well said
        I also like Anonymous’ characterization of the ‘socialism of responsibility’

    3. avatar Specialist38 says:

      I disagree that we need the military to do it. As a matter of fact, I would fight aving the military to do it. That is another slippery slope that would put us closer to the “brown-shirt” utopia the left wants.

      If our cities and states have the will, they could clean it up. It may take J.Edgar Hoover style tactics to get it done. Gangs need to be removed – not reformed.

      Our major cities are just mini-me Mexico. A failed state that has no desire to stop the crime since they profit from it. Instead, they look to put more restrictions on peacable citizens.

      Tyranny in it’s purest form.

    4. avatar burley says:

      It’s even simpler than that: end the war on drugs, restore constitutionality in regards to a persons right to pollute their own bodies. Make public impact of said drug abuse extremely unpleasant, much like public drunkenness or driving while drunk, but cease the notion that we can enforce sobriety of any kind. Tax and regulate the manufacture of “drugs”. Gangs will lose most of why they thrive with the addition of clean, cheap supplies. Then, funnel a fraction of the taxes spent on the militarized police forces on treatment options, and spend less overall when we downsize every police force. Of course we’ll have to re-educate (or just burn) all the CIA spooks who’ve been running the cartels in foreign countries…

    5. avatar burley says:

      It’s even simpler than that: end the war on drugs, restore constitutionality in regards to a persons right to pollute their own bodies. Make public impact of said drug abuse extremely unpleasant, much like public drunkenness or driving while drunk, but cease the notion that we can enforce sobriety of any kind. Tax and regulate the manufacture of “drugs”. Gangs will lose most of why they thrive with the addition of clean, cheap supplies. Then, funnel a fraction of the taxes spent on the militarized police forces on treatment options, and spend less overall when we downsize every police force. Of course we’ll have to re-educate (or just burn) all the CIA spooks who’ve been running the cartels in foreign countries…

  2. avatar S.Crock says:

    1) K-12 firearm safety education in schools. There are ~500 accidental gun deaths each year. If everyone got a 15 minute safety course each year until they graduate I bet that would be reduced by about 30%. 2) Mental health in America needs to be addressed. We make it so many are scared to get treatment. Many have no way to get treatment. And many simply get put on drugs that make them more unstable. Addressing mental health will probably be the most expensive but most effective fix. 3) Enforce existing laws to greater severity. Too many gun traffickers and people in prison for battery and attempted murder get released too early and become repeat offenders. Make room in these prisons by letting the weed dealers and Molly users out of prison because they don’t belong there anyway.

    1. avatar Sgt of Marines says:

      Let’s not forget the 1000s of Armed Robbery’s that are reduced to theft so the prosecutor has a higher conviction rate to run on when they run for higher office.

  3. avatar Alex Waits says:

    Three real ways?
    1. Stop demonizing POTG
    2. National Constitutional Carry
    3. Abolition of fictional “GFZ”

  4. avatar Uh-huh says:

    These solutions = A dog that licks up it’s own puke after eating its own shit.

    1. avatar Jack says:

      Hahahah….
      Eewwwww…
      Hahahaha!

    2. avatar 2004done says:

      Uh-Huh: Do you have any studies/ references/ anecdotes that might SHOW how your suggestions (sick as they are) will help?

    3. avatar George McFly says:

      Uh……Huh???

    4. avatar Steven B. says:

      Uh……Huh???

  5. avatar Ed Schrade says:

    How about increasing gravity so these ” high capacity bullets ” can shoot so far. Have you ever noticed that idiots are always ready to offer advice.

    1. avatar 2004done says:

      Ed: I get huff-po and other alt-left e-mails [know your country’s enemies], and they are worse self-starters.

  6. avatar JasonM says:

    1) It doesn’t matter if driving is a right or not (and the 9th and 10th Amendments would imply it is). You only need a government license to drive on a government owned road. And you only need a government registered vehicle to drive on a government owned road. You can drive an unregistered car, without a license, on private property all day long. And you can transport an unregistered car on government roads, as long as you’re not operating it (i.e. on a trailer).
    I’d love to handle guns like cars: you only need a license to use them on government roads, and you only need to register them if you want to use them on government roads. You can build, modify, sell, or buy a car on the private market without any government permission or paperwork. And there are laws about it being legal to shoot in self-defense in areas that it would otherwise not be, so we’d be all set.

    2) And there are studies that show smoking is good for your lungs. Reality disagrees with both sets of studies.

    3) Doctors should be able to ask whatever they wish. And we should be able to tell them to mind their own business, or choose a new doctor.

    4) Because that’s going to turn the 400M guns in the US into smart guns overnight? And criminals aren’t going to figure out how to bypass smart guns with a 50¢ magnet? Anyone who wants to can invest in smart guns. There’s no law stopping you.

    5) How about we eliminate all government funded research? Where in the Constitution does it give the feds the authority to fund it?

    6) They have legal immunity, not illegal immunity, if someone uses their products in a crime and they followed all laws in the sale of that product. No pillow manufacturer would be held responsible if someone used a pillow to suffocate a person.
    And there are products linked to deaths at a rate similar to guns: autos (40,000 in 2017), and much greater: tobacco (500k+, but anyone 18 or older can buy tobacco without any restrictions), unhealthy food (about 80k for diabetes, but any kid can buy HFCS laden sodas and candies, about 600k for heart disease, but anybody can go to KFC without a background check).

    1. avatar DRGO says:

      “3) Doctors should be able to ask whatever they wish. And we should be able to tell them to mind their own business, or choose a new doctor.”

      Well, it IS a free country.
      However, it’s not the asking but the recording of ownership in electronic medical records systems and, more importantly, propagandizing patients against the exercise of Second Amendment rights that the issue. When the latter is done by exploiting the patient’s vulnerability in the doctor-patient power dynamic and by exploiting the patient’s ignorance of the issue, it’s the patient’s liberty that is being violated.

      The reason we at DRGO oppose docs asking the gun question as part of a routine evaluation is because of the “recommendations”, “guidance” and “follow-up questions” medical anti-gun activists are pushing. DRGO has exposed the nature of those “recommendations” – which are based on agenda-driven advocacy “research”.

      You can see the true intent of inquiring about gun ownership when you review these “recommendations”, “guidance” and “follow-up questions” here:
      annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2522436/yes-you-can-physicians-patients-firearms

      Of course, the politically activated gun owner is likely more immune to such persuasion, but the the less politically aware and non-gun owners may be vulnerable to being

      Search TTAG for my name and “Wollschlaeger” for more discussion on this.

      Arthur Z Przebinda, MD
      Project Director
      Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Thanks for your efforts and your input here. And keep up the good work.

      2. avatar JasonM says:

        I don’t doubt that the doctors pushing this have an agenda other than health and safety. But that doesn’t mean we should legislate the doctor-patient relationship.
        A doctor asking about guns, and suggesting I get rid of mine, should be just as legal as a doctor suggesting I follow his religion. Both are immaterial to the doctor-patient relationship, and both are clear indications to get a better doctor.

    2. avatar Uh-huh says:

      Why don’t these Shit-for-brains go after Anheuser busch for Drunk driving deaths, liver psoriasis, domestic violence, under age drinking, and alcoholism.
      All of that kills more people a year than guns.

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        Because the vast majority of Americans like booze and, at least occasionally, consume it.

        A quick Google search comes up with government studies that show the government believes that 70.1% of Americans have consumed booze in the past year. (Personally I think this is a low-ball number.)

        If government studies showed that 70.1% of Americans owned guns no one would fuck with us.

    3. avatar strych9 says:

      “You can build, modify, sell, or buy a car on the private market without any government permission or paperwork.”

      Careful there buddy. Your statement here is not strictly speaking true.

      In many, but not all, cases you cannot alter or tamper with the emissions system of your car without committing a federal crime. I’m not aware of anyone being prosecuted for any violation like this and I would hazard the guess that it has never happened but if you ticked off the wrong EPA agent (or a local cop who knows about these regs) you might find yourself in a world of hurt over something like this.

      The law on this isn’t exactly clear which is perfect for the EPA (or an angry agent/LEO) to selectively enforce it. Does changing the exhaust on a ricer like mine violate the law? Unclear. It depends on what you do/how you do it/what it changes/what else you change. Does “chipping” or “tuning” the car for “better performance” break the law? You bet your ass it does (unless the car is only going to be used on a track, in private property or for rally racing) which is why many chip/tune kits come with a legal disclaimer that you’re not actually supposed to use the damn thing and the guys that chip/tune your car generally tell you not to drive it on the road and that if you get caught doing so they didn’t do the work. In fact, in some cases even if you modify the car to be cleaner it’s illegal depending on what you did because you “tampered” with the emissions settings of the car which is, generally, illegal.

      This is akin to many state laws on motorcycle mufflers. “Stock” is acceptable “modified” in a way that makes them louder is illegal. Does that necessarily make sense? No, but it’s the law. Example: A Harley’s “stock exhaust” is (I’m picking random numbers here) 100dB. I take the exhaust off one of my sport bikes and put a slip-on muffler on the bike. This raises the noise level from 65db (stock) to 72db (slip-on). Which bike is legal? The window rattling, obnoxiously loud Harley is 100% legal, in many states the sport bike is not because I have “modified” the exhaust in a way that “makes it louder”. I’m still way, way quieter than the Harley but… it’s ze law.

      Careful with these things. Just because what you say makes sense doesn’t make it legal. In some cases just the fact that you make sense is what’s illegal.

      1. avatar Rincoln says:

        Off-road (as was initially stated) is not subject to those regulations. There’s a reason those aftermarket pipes are marked for “off-road use only.” Not on the government road = no registration, licensing, or regulation.

        There may be laws at the state level. But your comment is factually incorrect.

      2. avatar JasonM says:

        You can build a track vehicle with absolutely no exhaust filtering/muffling system. In fact, when people track prep a car, that’s one of the first things they eliminate. It only becomes an issue if you want to get a government registration for that car to operate it on a government road. You can drive it on private race tracks with just a straight pipe exhaust (or no exhaust after the headers).

    4. avatar Lost Down South says:

      “You only need a government license to drive on a government owned road. And you only need a government registered vehicle to drive on a government owned road. You can drive an unregistered car, without a license, on private property all day long. And you can transport an unregistered car on government roads, as long as you’re not operating it (i.e. on a trailer).”

      AND! As long as you are on private property, there is ABSOLUTELY NO AGE LIMIT to owning or operating a vehicle. I would recommend adult supervision at least until your kid can reach the pedals…

  7. avatar OmnivorousBeorn says:

    Fix NICS
    National Reciprocity
    Public relations (be a nice person, especially when debating the 2A)

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Fuck FixNICS, fuck government privileges, and fuck them.

      1. avatar OmnivorousBeorn says:

        Good plan.

        Just for clarification, when I said fix NICS I didn’t mean the bill. I meant fix it.

  8. avatar Mort Pokerman says:

    Start locking up the criminals and throwing away the key. Stop treating criminals like victims and sue their families for giving birth to these rejects.

    1. avatar jwtaylor says:

      This is it. All of it. The vast, vast VAST majority of violent crime is perpetrated by repeat offenders. In Chicaco, 95% of murders have lengthy criminal records. That’s not hyperbole, that’s the real percentage of repeat violent offenders with multiple prior convictions.
      We always hear lefties compare “gun crime” in the US with England. Know what the mandatory minimum for a man convicted of murder with a firearm is in England? Life. That’s the mimumum.
      There’s the difference.

    2. avatar Mack Bolan says:

      Add the deportation and repatriation of illegal offenders and their families and you are on to something.

      No fvcking way in hell should a taxpayer have to fund the incarceration of anyone who should not be here in the first place.

  9. avatar Dan says:

    It’ll never happen, but start by ditching the term “gun violence”. Terrorism, gang/drug related violence, domestic violence, crazy people violence, and suicide aren’t the same things. Calling it all “gun violence” tries to produce a common denominator that isn’t actually common. Even worse, it removes from discussion any other potential solutions that don’t involve gun control and polarizes the discussion along political lines. But then…this isn’t about fixing any of the above and never has been.

  10. avatar GunTotinDem says:

    Fix the law enforcement and other qualified organizations reporting to the NICS. Provided its acurate, Im ok with a background check. I have to go thru a credit check when i get a loan or make a large purchase.

    IF guns are easier to get than books in the hood, why arent there any school shootings there? Why are they all [email protected] Suburban $#!t$. That a question i really want to figure out. In talking with my Coworkers the only thing we can figure out is That in the hood if you dont take care of your business right then you’d be eaten alive. These Suburban $#!t$ are so conditioned not to deal with their problem that they finally explode.

    Thoughts?

  11. avatar General Zod says:

    Wow. Six fails out of six attempts. These guys are good.

  12. avatar bobo says:

    Buying a gun should be as hard as buying a car??

    Really?

    I can go buy the fastest car on earth RIGHT NOW!
    If I have the money?
    and I have no training on how to drive over 325MPH on highways!
    the only thing I need is a drivers license that a half blind 90yo or dumb as shit 16 yo can get?
    and no feds stopping me from buying said car…the only thing stopping me is price??

    now if I had the money, you agree I should be able to buy a belt fed 50 cal with tripod then guy?
    and all I would need is a very very simple shooting test that does not even need that weapon, I could in fact use the equivalent of a firearms Toyota corolla?

  13. avatar Ian in Transit says:

    WOW! Time still exists! I haven’t seen or heard of it in over a decade. With writing and research like this its no wonder.

  14. avatar NYC2AZ says:

    The real problem that virtually nobody is willing to address is that politicians campaign on enacting and keeping laws in effect based on the intention of the law rather than if those specific policy prescriptions yield the intended results (reduction in homicide, suicide, etc). Until the attitude of policy failure is addressed in a honest way (instead of enacting more stringent versions of the same failed policies), the rule of law will continue to degrade as virtually every citizen becomes a felon. Some might say that’s a feature and not a bug.

  15. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    Typical civilian disarmament propaganda from Slime,want to stop gun violence,end GFZ and each state institute Constitutional Carry as the founders intended.
    It would end gun violence and the Left’s tender panties would be twisted in a knot however it would solve there supposed problem of gun violence.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Yep. I would add in fixing laws that cripple self-defense.

  16. avatar CLarson says:

    “So what could America do to reduce “gun violence” without dinging its citizens’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms?”

    There isn’t a gun violence problem. Violence is at an all time low. The vast majority of Americans never see gun violence except in the media. How do you combat fake news? I don’t know, how do you prove the weather man is full of crap, just stick your head out the window. Ordinary people need ordinary examples of guns not causing violence. 2nd amendment groups need a ground game. We need sponsored 5K races in every city. NRA picnics in the park. Basically act like any other special interest group trying to appeal to local communities. Not everyone needs to be armed but there should be a visible armed presence of nice ordinary people having a good time. For God’s sake the Left wears ludicrous pussy hats. Guns are cool, it’s not a hard sell.

  17. avatar ironicatbest says:

    There is no such thing as gun violence. Guns are an inanimate object. How to stop people violence? …..

  18. avatar CarlosT says:

    Being a car owner and a gun owner is actually roughly equivalent in most places. There’s no license required to buy either a car or a gun.

    Licenses to operate a car in public are universally shall issue. meet the requirements and you will be issued the license. Can anyone think of a jurisdiction that is may or no issue in regards to drivers’ licenses? Are there any jurisdictions where you have to show “good cause” to justify your application for a driver’s license? In this regard, it’s harder to be a gun owner than a driver.

    1. avatar Nanashi says:

      If there is such a place, it’s most likely with licenses for minors and/or higher class (Hazmat, heavy truck ect.) of license if anyone actually wants to look for one.

  19. avatar oscar says:

    DO YOU WANT TO REDUCE GUN VIOLENCE BY 50%?
    Easy, don’t blame guns or the NRA, blame the Black community and the Democrats who keep them in the liberal plantation: Blacks are 14% of the population but commit 53% of all homicides (FBI Crime Statistics), and young black males between 15 and 35 years old are the ones who kill the most, so less than 5% of the population commits almost 50% of all the homicides, but they claim to be the victims, how hypocritical is that? FEEL-GOOD LEGISLATION BASED ON EMOTIONS WON’T SAVE LIVES. The problem with Liberals is that they judge laws and policies based on their intentions instead of on their effectiveness or unintended consequences

  20. avatar strych9 says:

    Three real ways?

    1) Get tough on people who commit violent crime. No more revolving doors in places like Chicago. You know where they now send US Army Medics to get them ready to deploy? Chicago Emergency Rooms and ambulances!

    2) Get serious about revamping mental health. It’s gonna be a hell of a job and a real balancing act but it has to be done.

    3) Get rid of cops/deputies like Israel and his cronies.

  21. avatar Moltar says:

    1. K-12 mandatory firearms safety education. Optional Rifle teams in every school.

    2. Let everyone act as their own first responder through responsible concealed or open carry.

    3. Improve our mental health system and start to actually intercept these nutjobs showing signs of violence before they get violent. Start treating them sooner!

    1. avatar Sgt of Marines says:

      Actually treat mental health issues, don’t just drug them into a stupor, because they will eventually stop taking them and bad things may happen.

  22. avatar Huntmaster says:

    How many people die a year from medical malpractice. 10’s of thousands. You want to save lives? Stop medical malpractice. Hey AMA, how about it?

  23. avatar little horn says:

    good god man, proof read your damn titles!!!!

  24. avatar Nanashi says:

    “For the most part, it is much easier to be a legal gun owner in America than it is to be a legal driver,”

    I can go on private land and do whatever the hell I want regardless of age or government licensing?

  25. avatar 33Charlemagne says:

    Holding gun manufacturers liable for the illegal and/or negligent actions of third parties is an atrocious idea that would be likely to have unintended consequences even the gun grabbers would not want. Law is not about ad hoc rules for specific cases but general principles that apply across the board. Allowing strategic lawsuits against gun manufacturers would be allowing unelected judges to in effect ban production of guns in the US. If gun makers can be put out of business for the misuse of their products why not producers of alcoholic beverages, cell phones and motor vehicles etc.? Prohibition was bad enough even with the democratic legitimacy of the Constitutional amendment process. Imagine what the effect of bans by judicial fiat would be!

  26. avatar Ed Earl says:

    Sorry, I stop reading anytime I see Bloomberg’s bottom b!tc# David Hemenway cited as an authority, I stop reading.

  27. avatar TommyJay says:

    Dan got it. Why, why, do we let the left frame every issue and define the language?

    I care only a little about “gun violence.” But I’m not upset when a home owner shoots an invader in the middle of the night. That’s gun violence, itsn’t it?

    I’m not upset when some guy with terminal cancer puts a gun in his mouth. That’s gun violence, itsn’t it?

    I’m only slightly upset when an extremely depressed guy puts a gun in his mouth. That’s gun violence, isn’t it?
    ________
    We KNOW that many or most Dems couldn’t care less about gun crime, because they mostly don’t prosecute gun carry or possession by recidivist felons. Hell, Obama pardoned a bunch of those that were convicted.
    ________

    So when you hear blather about “gun violence” you should immediately counter with “We need to talk about ‘gun crime’.”

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      Counter with, we gotta rid the world of all the liberal-communist MFs trying to sell people on the idea that they can protect them.

  28. avatar Joe R. says:

    “Three Real Ways to Reduce “Gun Violence” in America? Question of the Day”

    1) GO FUCK YOURSELF, the safety you want can’t be had, and the assholes selling it are fucking-crazy-evil.

    2) GO FUCK TIME MAGAZINE, all of them, dig up the dead ones, you deserve each other.

    3) FINISH THE FIRST 2 FIRST

  29. avatar John in Ohio says:

    “So what could America do to reduce “gun violence” without dinging its citizens’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms?”

    Shall not be infringed and fix restrictions in law on self-defense.

  30. avatar Cruzo1981 says:

    13% of the population commit 51.3% of all murders. Start there…

    1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

      Keep going in that direction until it reaches its true fruition. Just think of the Plantation consisting of all the owners and servants.

  31. avatar CZJay says:

    I consider driving a right: the human right to travel freely with modern means of transportation. Driving isn’t a Constitutional right like owning and carrying arms.

    I don’t like it when people argue that I can’t own property such as a car and I can’t use it on roads I paid for. If I am not harming anyone, why can’t I travel using one of the most effective ways currently available?

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Traveling is one exercise of a right that government hasn’t been completely successful at destroying. It has come very close by confusing the differences between driving and traveling in the minds of the masses.

  32. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    Safer America? Get rid of Dummycraps and their clientele.

  33. avatar Steven Brennan says:

    Here’s my plan since most gun violence is actually committed by repeat offenders:
    1) Commit a felony with a gun in your possession, even if the crime is illegally having a gun on you: 25yrs. no parole.
    2) Pull the trigger in commission of a felony…regardless of the outcome (bad shots have no advantages) : Life in prison.
    3) Commit murder with a gun: death penalty.

  34. avatar AaronW says:

    1. Redouble efforts to target gangs
    2. Keep close tabs on known recidivists after their release from prison
    3. Increase funding for crime labs, which will help clear cases and get bad guys convicted faster.
    4. Identify and *treat* children who seem at risk for harming themselves and/or others *before*
    they pop.

  35. avatar Whitey says:

    Want to reduce homicide by 51%? Make possession of firearms by blacks a capital offense. Want to cut the remaining 49% by 2/3? Apply the same restriction to Hispanics.

    White people commit murder at a European rate.

  36. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    So what could America do to reduce “gun violence”

    Simple.

    Make murder illegal.

    Should fix things right up in no time.

  37. avatar DaveDetroit says:

    Here’s a few simple ideas:

    1) Redefine “gun violence” as “suicide”, “brandishing”, “assault”, “murder”, “robbery”, or “illegal possession”. Prosecute same. Problem solved. Zero “gun violence”.

    2) Make parole boards criminally and civilly responsible for crimes done by anyone released before serving their full terms.

    3) Make sheriffs and politicians of sanctuary cities criminally and civilly responsible for crimes done by illegal aliens released back into society.

    4) Mandatory firearms safety classes for children K-12 by NRA Certified instructors.

    5) Police, sheriffs, and private security shall only have the same legal access to the kinds and types of firearms as the average law abiding citizen. No special call outs for cops or armed security.

    6) Define the fear that inanimate objects will spontaneously commit violence or perform demonic possession as a mental illness requiring involuntary commitment to a mental health facility, preventing that person from ever holding a public office.

  38. avatar neiowa says:

    STOP saying ““Gun Violence”. I challenge anyone to find a more meaningless pansy leftist term.

    1. avatar jwtaylor says:

      challenge accepted:
      Social Security

      1. avatar NYC2AZ says:

        Okay… That’s fuckin’ funny right there.

  39. avatar JANOVEN says:

    This is to inform the public that janoven personal loan lenders is the financial opportunity to those who need financial assistance. We provide 3% interest rate loan to individuals, firms and corporations subject to the conditions are clear and easy to understand. contact us today by email at: [email protected]

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email