Issues That Divide Because Of Solutions
The question about guns, how to stop mass shootings and control crime join the one on abortion, with extremes on both sides that make any solutions difficult.
On one side we have the ban the guns crowd. If they had their way then all guns would be banned and that would solve the issue. Well, leaving aside the constitutional question, which is not insignificant, I have one more question for these advocates.
In the past century we have banned alcohol, gambling and drugs. How has that worked out?
When we said no to drugs in your lifetime, were the streets filled with them? Are illegal drugs at the root of most of the crime we experience these days?
Why would anyone think that banning guns would be any different than other bans we have put in place?
Now, on the other extreme, is there should be no controls at all. Why? We have controls for everything that define the norm in society.
Are there steps we can do that both sides might support, and will they help?
I think the great majority of us are fine with someone purchasing to file an application and have the gun registered.
I think a majority think there should be a background check for buying and owning a gun. Can we trust this person?
At one point we discussed technology locking a finger print to the trigger so only that person can use it. Sell it and it gets changed.
Would a rise from 18 to 21 to buy a gun help avoid the tragedies? Certainly not all, but if it does the next one, who would be against that? Of course you need to counter why we would send 18-20 year olds to war and not allow them to own a gun at home.
If we do all that, would it solve the issue? Of course not. There’s another element and it involves drugs to some extent, called mental illness.
No sane person, no person with a sense of morality, no person with a heart and thinking mind would walk into a school and shoot ten year old children.
There’s a mental illness in this nation among many and we block records on them so as to not stigmatize them. We did that at the goodness of our being, to assure they can advance in life. It was a do good move. However, all it did was lead to an extreme and the release of people who need more help. We need to get back to protecting others by taking these individuals off the street.
Which leads to the discussion of crime.
The events like in Texas get the coverage, yet in our major cities we have an equivalent number of shootings every weekend and involve young people still in their teens.
Take a look at the violence over the Memorial Day weekend in Chicago, where the number of people shot each weekend is astounding. Last year there were 37 shot Memorial Day Weekend. This year, it was up to 47 individuals shot, with nine dying from their wounds. The weekend prior it was 32.
This was with a citywide youth curfew of 10 p.m. and near the toughest gun laws already in place.
The gun laws and curfews aren’t working.
Now Chicago is a city like NY and LA, where we reduced bail for crimes.
Why?
Well, it was deemed unfair because the young and minorities could not afford bail as could some older non minorities.
Thus the solution, let them back on the street. Reduce the charges and hope for the best.
Hope is not a policy.
We know a few commit the majority of crimes. We don’t need them being rewarded with more time on the street to commit more crime.
Sorry, that’s the wrong approach.
Instead of lowering the bail, how about raising it for all? The citizens on the streets, the kids in school, those riding the subway all have the right to their safety. They broke no laws and are the backbone of our nation. It is them we need to be concerned about first, not the person deciding to break the norms of society.