Donald Trump running for president

[muscleupcrohn]

I wonder where all the people who claim the massacre could have been prevented by more people carrying guns? Oh that's right, it wouldn't have helped at all in this situation.

Correct, this situation could not have been prevented by a good guy with a gun. That in an of itself isn't an argument that guns are useless for protection though. That is akin to saying that we should not look to pass a gun law because it wouldn't have prevented a shooting from occurring, or from the shooter from getting a gun. It works both ways. No one law, action, philosophy, etc. can fix ALL instances of a problem. It's more nuanced than that. Why does everyone want to make it so black and white on one side or the other?

 

[Jiigzz]

It's all good, and I did even admit that the US isn't close to the safest country, just that the comparison to Brazil was inaccurate. As to why, there are likely many factors, including laws and culture, but, like I mentioned before, it may have something to do with the philosophy of the founding fathers and the emphasis on maximizing freedom that has been a theme throughout US history, as evidenced by Thomas Jefferson saying "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."

Edit: Also, like I mentioned, guns are so omnipresent in the US that it may not even be possible to get rid of them all. Many states/cities with very restrictive gun laws still have plenty of gun-related crimes and murder. Asking people to turn in their guns doesn't always work for criminals. It's more nuanced than just saying that all the problems will disappear if guns were outlawed tomorrow. I mean, no one does drugs because they're illegal, right?

Except even on the free country index you still rate low. So it's not the guns that make you free.

I can still own a firearm in NZ. I can own ammo. I can shoot those firearms. I just cannot carry them with me. You MUST demonstrate ability with a firearm before you use one. You must demonstrate safe handling. You must show authorities how you store ammo and guns separately, and locked away. Guns can only be sold by very few stores. Mostly low calibre hunting rifles. Anything more powerful requires rechecking for basic safety and authorization.

Even the loosest people I know are very serious in handling firearms. I went hunting with a bunch of loose westies and we all went over firearm safety before we even got the guns out. Told not to fire until a target was clearly ID.

Those are not restrictive laws. They are ones designed for everyones safety.

I dint get why the US is so opposed to still having guns, but having tighter processes to actually acquiring them and ammo. Its like you think you're just going to lose your guns - you won't.

 

[Jiigzz]

It's all good, and I did even admit that the US isn't close to the safest country, just that the comparison to Brazil was inaccurate. As to why, there are likely many factors, including laws and culture, but, like I mentioned before, it may have something to do with the philosophy of the founding fathers and the emphasis on maximizing freedom that has been a theme throughout US history, as evidenced by Thomas Jefferson saying "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."

Edit: Also, like I mentioned, guns are so omnipresent in the US that it may not even be possible to get rid of them all. Many states/cities with very restrictive gun laws still have plenty of gun-related crimes and murder. Asking people to turn in their guns doesn't always work for criminals. It's more nuanced than just saying that all the problems will disappear if guns were outlawed tomorrow. I mean, no one does drugs because they're illegal, right?

Except even on the free country index you still rate low. So it's not the guns that make you free.

I can still own a firearm in NZ. I can own ammo. I can shoot those firearms. I just cannot carry them with me. You MUST demonstrate ability with a firearm before you use one. You must demonstrate safe handling. You must show authorities how you store ammo and guns separately, and locked away. Guns can only be sold by very few stores. Mostly low calibre hunting rifles. Anything more powerful requires rechecking for basic safety and authorization.

Even the loosest people I know are very serious in handling firearms. I went hunting with a bunch of loose westies and we all went over firearm safety before we even got the guns out. Told not to fire until a target was clearly ID.

Those are not restrictive laws. They are ones designed for everyones safety.

I dint get why the US is so opposed to still having guns, but having tighter processes to actually acquiring them and ammo. Its like you think you're just going to lose your guns - you won't.

 

[youngandfree]

FWIW that list is safety across a lot of metrics, not just gun laws. The US ranks 11th in the world for firearm related deaths, and sits among very third world countries, however this also includes suicides.

The point is though, that guns are not making your country safe. That is a fallacy, and you use further fallacies to defend it. You can like guns. You can want guns. You can pretend owning guns is making you safer, but we all know it isn't.

Lumping suicides into gun violence is absurd. People bent on committing suicide will do it by any means they have at their disposal. That's as absurd as counting criminals that were shot and killed by cops during commission of crimes into stats of "gUn violence and deaths."

 

[Jiigzz]

Again, you can't explain how a country with fewer people that has 40,000 more homicides than the US can be considered "safer". You also can't explain how suicide rates of the US contribute to it being considered more unsafe.

Did you not read my response above to MUP? I made an error on that SINGULAR link. The rest just show you didn't make top 20.

So no. Sorry to burst your bubble. The US is not safe

 

[Misfit28]

Correct, this situation could not have been prevented by a good guy with a gun. That in an of itself isn't an argument that guns are useless for protection though. That is akin to saying that we should not look to pass a gun law because it wouldn't have prevented a shooting from occurring, or from the shooter from getting a gun. It works both ways. No one law, action, philosophy, etc. can fix ALL instances of a problem. It's more nuanced than that. Why does everyone want to make it so black and white on one side or the other?

I wasn't really arguing one way or the other. Just an observation, actually.

It seems that every time one of these things happens I hear that argument in favor of more lax gun laws.

This time is different, and I'm honestly glad not to hear it.

 

[Jiigzz]

There is the legitimate question of if outlawing guns would even get them out of the hands of criminals and gang members, who, by definition, would likely not obey the law to turn their guns in, and may only serve to disarm law abiding citizens. Again, I'm not saying we do nothing, only that an outright ban is overly simplistic and seems unlikely to be effective, not that you're suggesting it would work.

Australia did it.

You just keep making excuses. And let me guess, the next reply will be "The US is not Australia".

Well considering they were the only country to do it, that's more evidence than you have to say it won't work.

 

[Jiigzz]

More people died on 9/11 and in Oklahoma without a single shot being fired.

They used pretty big ****ing planes. For a country that prides itself on guns in the hands of citizens to protect against crime, you guys aren't very good at it

 

[youngandfree]

A country that has never had to fight for their independence doesn't understaND people in a country who have. That's where a large culture difference comes from.

 

[Jiigzz]

More people died on 9/11 and in Oklahoma without a single shot being fired.

I think you're just mad because your name is youngandfree, despite your country placing low on the freedom index.

 

[Misfit28]

Lumping suicides into gun violence is absurd. People bent on committing suicide will do it by any means they have at their disposal. That's as absurd as counting criminals that were shot and killed by cops during commission of crimes into stats of "gUn violence and deaths."

Why exactly is that absurd?

If someone is killed by a gun, whether it is in the commission of a crime or a suicide, it still results in a death by a firearm.

 

[youngandfree]

They used pretty big ****ing planes. For a country that prides itself on guns in the hands of citizens to protect against crime, you guys aren't very good at it

You're arguing gun laws prevent deaths though, I'm pointing to examples where thousands were killed in 2 incidents and they didn't include guns.

You know the US has armed air Marshalls and armed pilots on airplanes now, to handle terrorists on a plane. If guns wouldn't prevent another airline incident, why have armed people on the planes now?

 

[Jiigzz]

Lumping suicides into gun violence is absurd. People bent on committing suicide will do it by any means they have at their disposal. That's as absurd as counting criminals that were shot and killed by cops during commission of crimes into stats of "gUn violence and deaths."

We get It bro. Dont worry, you're not going to lose access to your guns.

You should PM Admin and change your name to notasfreeasithink

 

[youngandfree]

Why exactly is that absurd?

If someone is killed by a gun, whether it is in the commission of a crime or a suicide, it still results in a death by a firearm.

It doesn't add to the argument that someone committed a violent act against someone else though and murdered them with a gun.

 

[youngandfree]

We get It bro. Dont worry, you're not going to lose access to your guns.

You should PM Admin and change your name to notasfreeasithink

At least the US isn't still under the British Crown.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Except even on the free country index you still rate low. So it's not the guns that make you free.

I can still own a firearm in NZ. I can own ammo. I can shoot those firearms. I just cannot carry them with me. You MUST demonstrate ability with a firearm before you use one. You must demonstrate safe handling. You must show authorities how you store ammo and guns separately, and locked away. Guns can only be sold by very few stores. Mostly low calibre hunting rifles. Anything more powerful requires rechecking for basic safety and authorization.

Even the loosest people I know are very serious in handling firearms. I went hunting with a bunch of loose westies and we all went over firearm safety before we even got the guns out. Told not to fire until a target was clearly ID.

Those are not restrictive laws. They are ones designed for everyones safety.

I dint get why the US is so opposed to still having guns, but having tighter processes to actually acquiring them and ammo. Its like you think you're just going to lose your guns - you won't.

I never said the guns make the US free, let's stay on topic.

Like I said, and what a lot of people seem to miss, is that guns are omnipresent in the USA already, to a degree that they are not, and have not been, in countries like the U.K., NZ, Australia, etc. There are millions of criminals with guns, who have no intention of obeying laws, hence the term criminals. Seeing as there are already plenty of criminals who go around robbing homes with guns, having one yourself may unfortunately be the only way to have equal ability to defend yourself. Keeping my ammo separately locked up from the firearm could be the difference between life and death.

Admittedly, if I could flip a switch and say "all guns in the US are gone for good, from criminals and good guys alike," that would probably be good, but that may not be realistic. Again, simply 1:1 extrapolating laws and social issues from one county to another isn't always accurate or realistic.

 

[Jiigzz]

A country that has never had to fight for their independence doesn't understaND people in a country who have. That's where a large culture difference comes from.

Britain colonised America. Then Britain came back to fight those that left the colony.

So in your war, the British fought British that now considered themselves Americans.

Did you know that other countrys have left the British colony without war?

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Australia did it.

You just keep making excuses. And let me guess, the next reply will be "The US is not Australia".

Well considering they were the only country to do it, that's more evidence than you have to say it won't work.

I have actually done quite a bit of research on this topic. It is easier to get, say, 2 guns per 100 people off the streets than 20 (made up numbers just to illustrate a point). Guns are so omnipresent in the US, and so abundantly owned by criminals that outlawing them all tomorrow may only serve to effectively disarm law abiding citizens while doing nothing to take them out of the hands of criminals, who would obviously not obey the law telling them to turn in their guns.

I'm not saying do nothing, only that "just ban guns tomorrow" probably wouldn't work that well, and there are arguments that, while it cut down on gun crime in Australia, that it had less of an effect on overall crime. Again, nuanced.

 

[Jiigzz]

I have actually done quite a bit of research on this topic. It is easier to get, say, 2 guns per 100 people off the streets than 20 (made up numbers just to illustrate a point). Guns are so omnipresent in the US, and so abundantly owned by criminals that outlawing them all tomorrow may only serve to effectively disarm law abiding citizens while doing nothing to take them out of the hands of criminals, who would obviously not obey the law telling them to turn in their guns.

but still criminals in Australia relenquished their guns. If they weren't relenquished, they were confiscated.

And noone is saying that US citizens cannot own ANY guns. For some reason you think it's all or nothing. Like i said, I can still own a gun.

You can have sensible gun laws and make it work. You guys would much rather not.

 

[youngandfree]

Britain colonised America. Then Britain came back to fight those that left the colony.

So in your war, the British fought British that now considered themselves Americans.

Did you know that other countrys have left the British colony without war?

NZ was sort of given independence after the British lost the American revolution. The British didn't want to fight another deadly war so they "granted" quasi independence to colines like NZ

 

[Misfit28]

Lumping suicides into gun violence is absurd. People bent on committing suicide will do it by any means they have at their disposal. That's as absurd as counting criminals that were shot and killed by cops during commission of crimes into stats of "gUn violence and deaths."

This is a quick search, by no means is it exhaustive.

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

 

[thebigt]

here is my opinion...even if the democrats were in full control of congress and white house, no significant gun control laws would be passed....look at the republicans and Obamacare, when it came time to 'DO' something other than talk, nothing got done!!!

here is a hypothetical....guns are illegal to both buy and possess , how do they enforce this?

gun control is nothing more than a talking point for democrats, same as repeal of Obamacare was for republicans, imo.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

but still criminals in Australia relenquished their guns. If they weren't relenquished, they were confiscated.

And noone is saying that US citizens cannot own ANY guns. For some reason you think it's all or nothing. Like i said, I can still own a gun.

You can have sensible gun laws and make it work. You guys would much rather not.

What I'm saying is that there are so, so, so many more, both total and per capita, guns owned by criminals in the US than in Australia.

Let's try to find common ground, I say a "sensible" gun law is stricter penalties for gun related crimes. It may not stop the mass shootings, but could help cut down on robberies, gang violence, etc. So many gun related crimes are committed by repeat offenders. Stricter penalties may help discourage crime, and at least get repeat violent offenders off the streets, while doing nothing to harm the rights of law abiding citizens. Yet democrats repeatedly vote against these laws.

 

[DemntedCowboy]

A country that has never had to fight for their independence doesn't understaND people in a country who have. That's where a large culture difference comes from.

I'll just say this....It's because all the other countries that want their indepence call on America, the country with all the guns and the greatest military in the world to come free them from their opression. Your welcome, rest of the world!

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Jiiggzz, I'm not saying stick my head in the sand and say "no gun laws," only that I do not believe a nationwide ban on semi-automatics (as some democrats actually have been on record supporting) would be the right answer. I can support a training course, I can support increased penalties for gun related crimes, etc. I'm not a conservative, and I'm trying to look at this objectively.

 

[Misfit28]

Here's another one:

Invalid Link Removed

Here's the abstract:

"This study investigates the relationship between firearm prevalence and suicide in a sample of all US states over the years 2000–2009. We find strong, positive effects of gun prevalence on suicide using OLS estimation, across a variety of measures for gun possession, and with several sets of controls. When using instrumental variable estimation, the effect remains significant, despite also finding significant evidence that gun ownership causes substitution towards gun-suicide rather than other methods of suicide. There is also evidence for non-linearities in the effects of guns on suicide."

Basically, other forms of suicide tend to be less deadly. When there is a gun present, it is almost assured that death will result.

 

[Jiigzz]

NZ was sort of given independence after the British lost the American revolution. The British didn't want to fight another deadly war so they "granted" quasi independence to colines like NZ

We still fly a Union jack. And voted to keep that right. Australia flys it proudly next to us.

For all the freedom independence promised, it seems like you guys don't actually feel all that free which is why you want to keep your guns.

Like I have said before, the US is well within their rights to own firearms and protect that right. But just remember why you think you need that right. Is it for your safety? Is it for others safety? Is is actually improving those two things? Or do you mostly just hate the fact the government is trying to take them away?
All are valid points of view. Did you see that video of that couple driving around aimlessly shooting at houses? What if your kid was shot? What good is you having a gun if they were already gone?

What about law enforcement who are so in edge ANYONE could have a gun? People wonder why there are so many senseless shootings, but if youre afraid of getting shot at because you pulled someone open that's what's going to happen. NZ cops have almost no fear of being shot at on duty. Does it happen? Sure. But so rarely it makes headlines.

Same as Australian police.

I much prefer that feeling of safety than one that if you look at someone wrong, you could be shot at for it.

We still have violent crime, but so do you. Even with all your guns. So does it actually make as much of a difference as you think?

 

[Misfit28]

here is my opinion...even if the democrats were in full control of congress and white house, no significant gun control laws would be passed....look at the republicans and Obamacare, when it came time to 'DO' something other than talk, nothing got done!!!

here is a hypothetical....guys are illegal to both buy and possess , how do they enforce this?

gun control is nothing more than a talking point for democrats, same as repeal of Obamacare was for republicans, imo.

I heard yesterday that Democrats are proposing banning bump stocks and other such accessories for semi-auto rifles that can make them closer to fully auto.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

I heard yesterday that Democrats are proposing banning bump stocks and other such accessories for semi-auto rifles that can make them closer to fully auto.

I can get behind that. Bumpfire stocks are not effective at all in the context of using a firearm for self defense. No sensible gun owner uses one on a gun to defend their property, life, or family. They've mostly been used as glorified range-toys, but now they have been abused and brought into the public eye. I'm not unreasonable. But I'm also not a conservative haha. This makes sense, but banning a gun for having a pistol grip while not banning a gun that is otherwise exactly the same is nonsense. Unfortunately, that's what a lot of liberals want to do.

 

[Jiigzz]

I'll just say this....It's because all the other countries that want their indepence call on America, the country with all the guns and the greatest military in the world to come free them from their opression. Your welcome, rest of the world!

To be honest, most people from this side of the world are afraid the US will start WW3. We're not afraid of NK or Russia. It's the US we hope that stops provoking everyone else.

 

[Misfit28]

I can get behind that. Bumpfire stocks are not effective at all in the context of using a firearm for self defense. No sensible gun owner uses one on a gun to defend their property, life, or family. They've mostly been used as glorified range-toys, but now they have been abused and brought into the public eye. I'm not unreasonable. But I'm also not a conservative haha.

Yep, absolutely. I'm not conservative in the slightest, but can't call myself a Democrat either LOL.

 

[Misfit28]

To be honest, most people from this side of the world are afraid the US will start WW3. We're not afraid of NK or Russia. It's the US we hope that stops provoking everyone else.

Exactly.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Yep, absolutely. I'm not conservative in the slightest, but can't call myself a Democrat either LOL.

Exactly. Most people are somewhere in the middle, but both parties and the media play up the differences and division. Anyway, here are two comparisons of guns, some of which liberals would want outlawed because of what they look like, but they're functionally identical:
Invalid Link Removed

This is not the "common sense" gun laws you're looking for. This is people ignorant to guns trying to pass laws out of fear mongering, not an accurate and objective analysis of the situation. Ban bumpfire, sure, not pistol grips.

 

[youngandfree]

This is a quick search, by no means is it exhaustive.

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

The topic of gun control revolves around mass shootings, and if weapons of war should be available. If they were illegal, the argument is a psuch wouldn't have the ability to murder a bunch of people. Preventing violence against another person is the stated goal. Less than 6000 homicides were committed by a person using a gun in a given year. A suicide is a violent act a person commits against themself, not against another innocent person. Suicide rate by firearm is much higher than homicide rate by guns. But one of the articles tries to extrapolate that a person wishing to kill themselves with a gun would be spared if the state had a waiting period. Is there data that suggests a spontaneous suicide attempt included the person having to go purchase a gun first or used one they already have?

2/3 of gun deaths are suicides, not people murdering other people.

 

[Misfit28]

The topic of gun control revolves around mass shootings, and if weapons of war should be available. If they were illegal, the argument is a psuch wouldn't have the ability to murder a bunch of people. Preventing violence against another person is the stated goal. Less than 6000 homicides were committed by a person using a gun in a given year. A suicide is a violent act a person commits against themself, not against another innocent person. Suicide rate by firearm is much higher than homicide rate by guns. But one of the articles tries to extrapolate that a person wishing to kill themselves with a gun would be spared if the state had a waiting period. Is there data that suggests a spontaneous suicide attempt included the person having to go purchase a gun first or used one they already have?

2/3 of gun deaths are suicides, not people murdering other people.

I'll look.

You don't think we should try to stop people from committing suicide? Aren't you a Christian who thinks all suicides go to hell?

 

[muscleupcrohn]

I'll look.

You don't think we should try to stop people from committing suicide? Aren't you a Christian who thinks all suicides go to hell?

Lol, I go to Church and read the Bible and I do not think all people who commit suicide go to Hell. Let's not lump all people together. People make mistakes, and can suffer from mental illness, etc. Who am I to judge and condemn them for one action made in a clear time of weakness?

 

[youngandfree]

We still fly a Union jack. And voted to keep that right. Australia flys it proudly next to us.

For all the freedom independence promised, it seems like you guys don't actually feel all that free which is why you want to keep your guns.

Like I have said before, the US is well within their rights to own firearms and protect that right. But just remember why you think you need that right. Is it for your safety? Is it for others safety? Is is actually improving those two things? Or do you mostly just hate the fact the government is trying to take them away?
All are valid points of view. Did you see that video of that couple driving around aimlessly shooting at houses? What if your kid was shot? What good is you having a gun if they were already gone?

What about law enforcement who are so in edge ANYONE could have a gun? People wonder why there are so many senseless shootings, but if youre afraid of getting shot at because you pulled someone open that's what's going to happen. NZ cops have almost no fear of being shot at on duty. Does it happen? Sure. But so rarely it makes headlines.

Same as Australian police.

I much prefer that feeling of safety than one that if you look at someone wrong, you could be shot at for it.

We still have violent crime, but so do you. Even with all your guns. So does it actually make as much of a difference as you think?

So no one in NZ can take their highly regulated and restricted gun and drive around shooting at a house?

 

[Jiigzz]

Jiiggzz, I'm not saying stick my head in the sand and say "no gun laws," only that I do not believe a nationwide ban on semi-automatics (as some democrats actually have been on record supporting) would be the right answer. I can support a training course, I can support increased penalties for gun related crimes, etc. I'm not a conservative, and I'm trying to look at this objectively.

Stricter punishments don't work.

 

[youngandfree]

I heard yesterday that Democrats are proposing banning bump stocks and other such accessories for semi-auto rifles that can make them closer to fully auto.

How did the California ban on those things stop the Muslim mass shooter in San Bernadino?

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Stricter punishments don't work.

What? So if someone who committed two armed robberies is in jail instead of back out on the streets, he's not less likely (not able) to commit a third? I'm not saying it's THE SOLUTION, just that it doesn't make sense not to do it as a reasonable starting point. Laws need teeth to work. We have gun laws now that aren't enforced, or are weakly enforced. What good is passing more laws if the only penalty for breaking them is a slap on the wrist? Again, not THE SOLUTION, but a start.

 

[Misfit28]

Lol, I go to Church and read the Bible and I do not think all people who commit suicide go to Hell. Let's not lump all people together. People make mistakes, and can suffer from mental illness, etc. Who am I to judge and condemn them for one action made in a clear time of weakness?

I didn't say you

 

[muscleupcrohn]

I didn't say you

I know, it's just that so many groups get a bad rap for the vocal minority. Christians, Muslims, etc. Not saying you were doing this, I just felt like sharing lol.

 

[Jiigzz]

Exactly. Most people are somewhere in the middle, but both parties and the media play up the differences and division. Anyway, here are two comparisons of guns, some of which liberals would want outlawed because of what they look like, but they're functionally identical:
Invalid Link Removed

This is not the "common sense" gun laws you're looking for. This is people ignorant to guns trying to pass laws out of fear mongering, not an accurate and objective analysis of the situation. Ban bumpfire, sure, not pistol grips.

Yeah I can get that this is just silly, but that's not the gun they're trying to ban. That's just one that falls under the proposed ban by technicality.

The intention seems to be to ban pistols

 

[youngandfree]

I'll look.

You don't think we should try to stop people from committing suicide? Aren't you a Christian who thinks all suicides go to hell?

How are you going to prevent all the hangings? Intentional drug overdoses. Sitting in your garage sucking exhaust fumes?

 

[Misfit28]

How are you going to prevent all the hangings? Intentional drug overdoses. Sitting in your garage sucking exhaust fumes?

Did you read any of the studies I posted? Using a firearm is far more lethal and reliable in causing death. Overdoses have like a 14% mortality rate.

Are you so ridiculously attached to your guns that you can't see reason at all?

 

[Misfit28]

Yeah I can get that this is just silly, but that's not the gun they're trying to ban. That's just one that falls under the proposed ban by technicality.

The intention seems to be to ban pistols

And semi-automatic rifles.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Yeah I can get that this is just silly, but that's not the gun they're trying to ban. That's just one that falls under the proposed ban by technicality.

The intention seems to be to ban pistols

At least you can admit it's silly haha. Anyway, is going to take a break from this thread for a while. It can be easy to let it consume too much time and effort. We may not always see eye to eye, but I do appreciate being able to have a civil discussion here. Peace.

 

[Jiigzz]

So no one in NZ can take their highly regulated and restricted gun and drive around shooting at a house?

We dont have guns like that issued in NZ.

We have guns that serve purposes for hunting. A handgun is a crap hunting weapon.

 

[thebigt]

I heard yesterday that Democrats are proposing banning bump stocks and other such accessories for semi-auto rifles that can make them closer to fully auto.

I heard that even the nra would be ok with that....that really is a no-brainer!!!

 

[Jiigzz]

What? So if someone who committed two armed robberies is in jail instead of back out on the streets, he's not less likely (not able) to commit a third? I'm not saying it's THE SOLUTION, just that it doesn't make sense not to do it as a reasonable starting point. Laws need teeth to work. We have gun laws now that aren't enforced, or are weakly enforced. What good is passing more laws if the only penalty for breaking them is a slap on the wrist? Again, not THE SOLUTION, but a start.

Countries focus on reformation, not condemnation. Reoffenders get progressively longer sentences, however countries don't have resources to lock up humans forever. Look at what happens in countries that do lock up crims forever. Jails get overcrowded and the inmates feel like caged dogs. 20 years later for a minor crime they are released and reoffend because they are treated like animals.

Treat someone like an animal, and watch them behave like one