Good luck with that. Abel/Cain? Samson/Jawbone of an ASS? Crucifixion? etc.
We won't stop people from killing each other, so get out of yourself. But what if we can find a law that actually works to ... if not eliminate firearms homicides, at least appropriately penalizes them?
My Modest Proposal (and I know you're going to think I'm a madman for saying this), is, how about we just impose the penalties for firearms possession which are already in the law books?
Most states impose an 'enhanced sentence' for dealing in drugs when a firearm is involved.
Most prosecutors are willing to trade with drug dealers by 'forgetting' the firearms enhancement if the drug dealers will plead guilty to the charge of "dealing" if the prosecutor ignores the gun charges.
In 2004 for example, Marnail Washington, a 22-year-old with no criminal history, was sentenced to 40 years after conviction of possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine and two §924(c) counts based on possessing, but not using, guns in connection with his drug offenses. That is, 30 years of his 40-year sentence were on gun counts.Clearly, Liberals are more concerned with the sale of Crack Cocaine than they are with the possession of firearms while dealing in drugs. Is this not a fine example of "Cognitive Disonance"?
In what way is dealing in Crack more dangerous to society than dealing in Crack while armed?
QUID PRO QUO:
DA's will forget the gun violations if the dealer will admit to the drug violation. QED
It's easier to prosecute for 'dealing' if the felon admits to the crime. But the sentence is lighter, and it only gets the armed felon off the streets for a relatively short time. He'll be back on the street in six months, still dealing, and still carrying ... and still a threat to public safety. (Not a quote)
(Granted, he's probably only a threat to his competitors, but I guess the prosecutors consider this "a feature" rather than "a bug".)
Which brings us to the problems of Firearms Violence in such towns as Chicago, Baltimore, etc.
Prosecutors there are equally eager to put dealers away for "Soft Crimes" because it's easy to dump them in the county jail for six months, for dealing Crack. It makes them (the prosecutors) look like they are "Doing Something", instead of admitting that they are prosecuting 'soft crime' instead of dealing with the threats of armed drug dealers.
Which perhaps explains, in part, why these communities are among the most violent cities in the world.
WHAT WOULD HAPPEN ...
... if those same prosecutors could work a little harder on clear cases of an armed drug dealer? Might they put a few of them in jail for long sentences, with compounded felonies to present to a judge?
Sure, the District Attorneys wouldn't win as many cases; it's harder to prosecute when dealers won't 'cop a plea'. But the dealers aren't stupid; they know they can 'carry' illegally, plead guilty to lesser drug crimes and not be penalized for it, because the District Attorney won't prosecute them for gun crimes. And drug crimes are often ALSO argued down to mere 'possession', no matter how much "product" they're holding.
Prosecutors win MORE cases, if they don't try to convict for gun crimes.
They aren't in the business to get dangerous felons off the street; they're in the business to get re-elected, and eventually to get a soft job in a law office, where their goal is to defend the same oft-convicted felons they have been putting in jail (for six months at a time, instead of seven years at a time) for decades.
It's a symbiotic relationship, and if nobody puts a bright spotlight on the process, then everybody wins.
Except for the victims of drugs and shootings, of course.