Originally Posted by pr_capone
I firmly believe that curbing gun violence in the US begins with education and the enforcement of existing laws. That said... is there any compromise to be had on the gun owner side of the argument?
Actually and somewhat ironically...no enforcement of existing laws is actually one of the major causes of gun violence. I know people will think that sounds crazy but it's actually fairly simple if you think of it.
Much if not most gun violence revolves around the gang and drug culture. In today's society, you have to ask yourself why do they even carry guns? One of the major issues if you are doing something that is against the law is that it's not like you can go to the police and report a crime if you get robbed of either said drugs or money. There is no one there to protect you from those trying to rob you or muscle you out of your territory to sell.
So what happens, if someone threatens to beat you up, you get a bat to protect yourself, then they get a knife, and then you get a gun and they get a gun and you have a relative balance of force, which unfortunately results in people often getting shot over disputes on territory or robbery.
Now the answer some would give is that if we banned all guns we could prevent them from escalating the level of violence. The problem with that is that it is effectively impossible to prevent criminals from getting their hands on guns. We can't stop the free flow of illegal drugs anywhere in this country and we have dogs that can detect the smell of drugs. Do you really think we will do a better job of detecting the flow of illegal firearms when they just look like chunks of metal? Likely no material reduction in crime guns, only a reduction in legal guns.
So if gangs are often motivated by drug related crimes and part of the reason they shoot each other up is that there is no one available to protect them. How about we extend police protect to crimes against drug dealers, etc? Police would be able to follow up on those attempting to muscle territory or those attempting to steal from drug dealers etc. There would be a substantially LESS need for those in the drug trade to carry firearms to protect themselves.
But this would require that we decriminalize drug use and sales. Which honestly is likely the appropriate response since the problem with drugs isn't actually drugs. It's addiction, we should be spending trillions of dollars fighting addiction than we should spending those same trillions enforcing prohibition that doesn't work.
History, science, et al has shown that prohibition is ineffective, yet we still waste money believing that our solution to our social problems is to prohibit people from having things because of what a few might do...