Gun Control, easy solution?

Question

If someone commits a crime with a gun (whether legally or illegally owned) then the government should throw them in jail for 20 years. Would that be an effective deterrent and if not a deterrent than an effective mechanism for keeping criminals off of the streets.

Answer 1

Armed robbery is armed robbery - doesn't matter if you've got a knife or a gun or a baseball bat.

Dead is dead - doesn't matter if it was a bullet, a knife or a car that killed you.

It's the person behind the weapon you should focus on, not the weapon.

Answer 2

That is the funniest, most inaccurate post on gun control I've read. A little too long though. First, it is our constitution that stands in the way of our president's gun confiscation plan, not gun companies. We have our constitution to protect our rights. Second, Britain has a much higher violent crime rate than the US. This means people are killed, just by other things. Does it really matter if someone is shot and killed vs beat to death with a wrench? They both end up dead; just less of them here. Third, If we were really concerned about public safety over profits, we would be banning GMO food and placing more restrictions on pharmaceutical companies. These two items cause more deaths and serious illness than anything else in the world.

Answer 3

Since 1968 there have been laws on the books demanding a minimum sentence for a multitude of gun crimes, though by no means all of them. They're just not often used. A few years ago, some communities began insisting on federal prosecution under those federal laws, and there was a howl, oddly enough largely from people who are in the anti-gun crowd.

Answer 4

It is an easy solution -- punish the crime, not the risk of crime -- but it wouldn't be a deterrent.

Statistics show that severe punishments are rarely a deterrent -- the people who would commit most crimes will do so anyway, regardless of how severe the punishment is.

But it does solve the gun control problem -- you punish the people who use guns to cause violence to others -- and you don't punish the people who don't cause any harm.

Answer 5

We try to do that.

The problem is our jails are too filled up with petty drug users so we can't fit the violent criminals in there.

And deterrents only work so far. Most people who are committing armed crimes don't think much about consequences of their actions or else they wouldn't be doing armed crimes.

Answer 6

No, however California sort of does that with a mandatory 10 year sentence for any gun crime.

The problem with treating all gun crimes the same, is you punish the guy firing into the air in celebration of the 4th of July just as much as the bank robber firing a round off at a cop.

Do you really want to do that?

Answer 7

A better thing would be if people would wake up and use some thing as simple as a trigger lock on their weapons. These locks are cheap enough to buy and they are effective when you use them, they are easy to use.

I have one for my 9mm pistol, it totally covers the entire trigger area so that you can not fire the weapon at all even with the clip in it.

It has a combination lock on it so that no child can just get the key and open it up and fire the weapon.

These can be used on any and every gun that people own to keep others from being able to use them.

Answer 8

Yeah, a potential 20 year sentence for jaywalking would have me looking both ways before crossing the street.

Answer 9

I doubt it. The prospect of death doesn't deter those that commit murder. But at least you're thinking keep it up maybe you'll be the one with the next big idea.

Answer 10

Yeah, but then you would have people whining about all the samuri sword attacks. Liberals would want more sword control and you'll be on YA yaking about taking away people's swords (whether legally or illegally owned).