A Tough Solution: Solving the Gun Problem

IMG_0172
I’ve taken some criticism for discrediting gun control measures that have been submitted with the goal of preventing crime and saving lives. My goal here is to present some difficult solutions that I think will work.

Right up front, I want to make it clear that there is absolutely NOTHING that government can do to end crime and prevent every death. Throughout the history of mankind, there have been those that simply don’t play well with others. There have always been and will always be people who are disposed to criminal activity. There will always be mad men and women who think they are more important than any law. Nothing will stand in their way to get what they want.

Yesterday, I attended the Guns Across America Gun Appreciation Day at the Capitol building in Austin. I was interviewed by a Japanese news team covering the event that was attended by approximately 2,000 patriots. One of the questions I was asked was, “do you think President Obama’s recommendations would have prevented the Sandy Hook shooting?”

My response was a simple, “no.”

IMG_0174

There is simply no way that a liberty-loving people can ever prevent a murderer from accomplishing his task. The only sure way to make a noticeable difference in such things is to infringe upon the liberties of the people.

But, CJ, what about stronger background checks? I’m opposed to them. I’m even opposed to the current background checks, though I think they are currently needed due to the way our court and prison system are currently set up to coddle violent criminals.

For example, let’s look at Jared Loughner. After Loughner killed several people and injured Representative Gabrielle Giffords there were many people claiming that stronger background checks would have prevented him from buying the Glock 19 he used in the shooting. They painted him as mentally unstable because a college professor suspended him from the classroom and he had “confrontations” with police. So, why was he suspended and what were these “confrontations?”

His first “confrontation” on February 5, 2010, was because he “reacted strangely to the reading of another student’s poem in class.” He said things about “abortion, wars, killing people, and ‘why don’t we just strap bombs to babies.'” In other words, he didn’t like abortion and the person that complained is a leftist professor named Patricia Houston. Houston described Loughner as having a “dark personality” (whatever that means) and “kind of creepy.” His second, April 6, 2010, “confrontation” was for singing along to music in a library. His third “confrontation” on May 17, 2010, was for “suspicious activity.” This suspicious activity consisted of Loughner “throwing down his work” and saying the he thought his Pilates class grade was “unacceptable.” The teacher then said she felt “threatened” and “intimidated” by Loughner. Sound familiar? Those of you who followed me during my fights with the Huntsville City School system will remember that me standing up for myself was also considered “hostile” and “intimidating.”

On June 3, 2010 Loughner was again targeted by Houston for nothing more than arguing with a math professor about a “problem that the instructor was trying to explain and argued with the instructor on the number used.” When the officer asked exactly what Loughner did that violated the student code of conduct, “she advised that Loughner was disrupted [sic] to the class and instructor.” She told the officer she just wanted it documented “so that [the Pima Community College Department of Public Safety] could look into his conduct.” She handed the officer a math quiz Loughner had submitted with the words “Mayhem Fest!!” on top. Mayhem Fest was a concert that headlined metal bands Rob Zombie, Korn, and Lamb of God, but she felt the need to show that to the officer.

For the sake of brevity, each and every “confrontation” with police was nothing more than him disturbing the class. There was also a report made about the YouTube video he uploaded talking trash about the school.

The reason I share this is simple: the gun grabbers would have you believe that we should be punished for our thoughts. Yes, Loughner seems to have had some issues and was a little “bizarre” as one of his professors noted, but that doesn’t mean that every infraction or even history of infractions should be placed into a database that would prohibit law-abiding Americans from owning a gun. Even when you look at all the reports released by Pima Community College in the FOIA, there is no indication that Loughner was ever a threat to anyone. He was a discipline issue and had some wild views on things, but that shouldn’t be grounds for barring. Obviously, if you don’t look at this objectively, but in the prism of what he ultimately did, you can say that there were signs. I disagree.

The problem is not barring people from getting guns, but in ordering people needing it to seek treatment. But, even that can have its problems. Who decides what is a mental illness? To some, liberalism is a mental illness. Others would point to Alex Jones as a mental case. Still others would label 9-11 truthers as being mentally ill. The media and ignorant politicians probably consider PTSD as a disqualifier for owning or possessing guns.

When the government begins to “strengthen” mental health checks and mentions them in the same context as background checks, we have a recipe for disaster. It’s no stretch to believe that a tyrannical government could use the “mental health” tool to restrict access to arms to many classes of people. Hitler thought Jews had mental problem and were an inferior people.

IMG_0192

A friend of mine made a great statement that I’m going to steal. If cops can’t “background check” for illegal status, why should people be subjected to them for Constitutionally guaranteed rights?

I was also asked about banning assault weapons and if that would help. Again, no. “But, CJ, why do Americans need assault weapons?” To them, I offer this video.

Ok, so once again I’ve been complaining and not offering any solutions. Watch how easy this is.

First, stiffen all penalties for commission of any crime involving a gun. I’m talking minimum sentences with no parole. I would automatically DOUBLE any sentence of any crime if a gun was used. If the sentence is a year for stealing a gumball, it’s two years if you used a gun to break into it.

Of course, stiff penalties don’t deter criminals. Why is that? Because prison is too easy. They are coddled with gourmet meals, cable television, crunchy peanut butter, basketball courts, free college, better gym equipment than Gold’s, way too much recreation time, Playboy, and so much more. So, in addition to stiffening sentences, we make jail a place no one wants to go. We bring back the chain gangs and hard labor.

This is a net gain for the country. We save money on all the food and equipment needed in our prisons. We force prisoners to do the hard labor that we’re now paying government personnel to do. For example, they can help pack potholes, clean gutters, rake and mow cemeteries, clean and feed shelter animals, clean city and county parks, clean shoulders, etc. Treat them like military recruits, controlling every minute of every day. They get no more than eight hours of sleep every day and work no less than 12 days. They get peanut butter and jelly sandwiches with a piece of fruit and water for lunch.

In other words, let’s go after the criminals and leave the law-abiding citizens alone to own whatever gun they want. It’s really not rocket science.

IMG_0141

One Comment on “A Tough Solution: Solving the Gun Problem

  1. Here’s gun control I can get behind: “One and done.”

    Singapore is one of those countries where gun violence, statistically, is practically unknown.

    There are a wide variety of reasons, but few we can actually apply here. We have a Supreme Court which has ruled on our right to possess and carry firearms. Singapore does not seem to have that as a “right,” per se’.

    But here’s the thing, you see:

    Arms Offences[sic] Act

    The Arms Offences[sic] Act regulates firearms offenses[sic].[19] Any person who uses or attempts to use arms (Section 4) can face execution, as well as any person who uses or attempts to use arms to commit scheduled offences[sic] (Section 4A). These scheduled offences[sic] are being a member of an unlawful assembly; rioting; certain offences[sic] against the person; abduction or kidnapping; extortion; burglary; robbery; preventing or resisting arrest; vandalism; mischief. Any person who is an accomplice (Section 5) to a person convicted of arms use during a scheduled offence[sic] can likewise be executed.

    Trafficking in arms (Section 6) is a capital offence[sic] in Singapore. Under the Arms Offences[sic] Act, trafficking is defined as being in unlawful possession of more than two firearms. [25/84]

    (3) Where any person at the time of his committing or at the time of his apprehension for any scheduled offence[sic] has on his person any arm, he shall be guilty of an offence[sic] and shall on conviction be punished with imprisonment for life and shall also be punished with caning with not less than 6 strokes.

    (4) Where any person convicted of an offence[sic] punishable under subsection (1) or (2) is proved to have been previously convicted of a scheduled offence[sic], he shall on conviction be punished with imprisonment for a term of not less than 5 years and not more than 20 years and shall also be punished with caning with not less than 6 strokes. [25/84]

    Using or attempting to use arms

    4.—(1) Subject to any exception referred to in Chapter IV of the Penal Code (Cap. 224) which may be applicable (other than section 95), any person who uses or attempts to use any arm shall be guilty of an offence[sic] and shall on conviction be punished with death.

    [30/93](2) In any proceedings for an offence[sic] under this section, any person who uses or attempts to use any arm shall, until the contrary is proved, be presumed to have used or attempted to use the arm with the intention to cause physical injury to any person or property.

    In short, if you use a weapon illegally in Singapore for almost anything criminal, you’re liable to be executed for it. Sentences are, essentially, automatic.

    “Arms,” as a definition, could also include knives and other weapons besides guns: garrotes, screwdrivers, blow torches, ice picks, chain saws…. you name it, the law could be used broadly enough to cover anyone who would use any instrument of any kind of criminal harm to another…. or anyone who knowingly assists them in the act to include selling them the weapons in question.

    Kind of removes the incentive. Kind of reduces the upside potential.

    As a nation, our crime rate continues to drop overall. Well, unless you live in the “gun free” zone of the City of Chicago.

    Imagine what would likely happen to even Chicago’s homicide rate if laws like these were enacted around the country.

    What I never forget is that the plummeting crime rate seems to be in direct proportion to the implementation of more “Three Strikes” laws.

    To that end, I would advocate an American interpretation of Singapore’s gun laws that would result in the life sentence of anyone carrying a weapon during a crime, and the execution of anyone who uses a weapon, in any way, to commit a crime.

    Further, I advocate the reduction of the “Three Strikes” law to a “TWO Strikes” law.

    EVERYONE knows the difference between right and wrong. Everyone should be entitled one “mistake.”

    But only one.

    I would call the weapons violations laws “One and Done,” And I would call the Three Strikes changes what they are: “Two Strikes and You’re Out.”

    Democrat heads would explode all over the country. Naturally, leftists would oppose this sort of thing. It’s “racist,” you see.

    I don’t care if it is: oddly enough, a gun doesn’t give a rat’s ass what color the finger on it’s trigger is.

    But regardless of color, under this law, if you’re going to use a gun to commit a crime, you are GOING to get hurt.

    This law, enacted, would have the benefit of shifting attention from the increasing regulation of those of us who follow the law, to those who actually BREAK the law.

    An approach that might work well in dealing with illegal aliens, come to think of it.

    That said, like so many other things in our lives, they are there, or not there, because of government.

    Our economy is an ongoing train wreck because the Obama Gang and Congress seemingly know about as much on how to fix this as they do brain surgery. In the end, it’s both the president AND Congress, including the establishment GOP, who are the reason we have his mountain range of debt being dumped on our children’s… and additional generations…. heads…. the ultimate game of kicking the can down the road.

    Simply put: if Obama and Congress didn’t want there to be a debt…. there wouldn’t be one.

    Likewise, gun violence continues to be a problem because government continues to look in the wrong direction: they continue to punish the law abiding for the acts of the law breaking. And it’s the same thing with gun violence.

    The gun-grabbers toy around the edges, making a lot of moves that accomplish nothing, doing their best, apparently, to keep the focus off those who need it the most.

    The impact of laws such as this would be immediate. Politically, the left would freak and then have to defend their efforts to derail such a move. They would be forced to either hop on to the train or get run over by it.

    That, by itself would be a thing of beauty, politically. But if saving lives is the goal, I have yet to see anything from anyone that would do more, faster, and I would love it if someone had a better idea

Leave a Reply

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