Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds
Without touching on the subject of an outright ban in urban areas and how it may or may not effect crime rate (I really do not want to turn this into another ongoing US shooting thread) the one issue I take with this idea is that it deprives those who are responsible from doing legal activities such as going to the range in the city, or it also effects hunters/sport shooters who happen to live in urban areas.
One thing I think we both could agree on is harsher penalties for those convicted of violent offenses, or ANY crime where a firearm was used in its commission. Recidivism should not be acceptable when it comes to firearm related crime.
|
I honestly don't know what the best solution would be. It might be something less dramatic like a registry in urban areas, or something more draconian like an outright ban. One thing that I think we can both agree on is that there is a problem.
That's why a measured conversation is needed by both sides to figure out a solution that actually works instead of "I want a full ban" vs "Guns for everyone" and nothing getting accomplished. This goes for any topic that's of any relevance.
Tougher penalties is something that could be done, unfortunately, no penalty is a strong deterrent. Otherwise things like the death penalty would actually lower instances of violent crime. Better educating the populace on firearm safety and how to properly use and responsibly own a firearm would also be useful.
There are a lot of things that could be worked on to find a common solution. Would you or I agree on 100% of everything? Of course not, but if there is a way to find common ground on even 30-40% of it would make for some progress. That is what is needed more than anything.