A partly sarcastic humor suggestion on reducing gun violence by Charles Novitsky
Conjecture:... As a drastic, yet conceivable solution to America's gun violence issue, it is humorously, and sarcastically proposed here, to employ the ultimate punishment... a death sentence to anyone previously convicted of a violent offense from owning a gun. More precisely, the death penalty (after fair trial) will be the sentence for any criminal (ie a police record of violence) guilty of possessing an illegally obtained gun, even if not used in a crime.
In this way, arguably, we can protect the rights of law abiding people to own guns defensively, and simultaneously get guns (usually illegal) out of the hands of violent people, by being firm with punishment.
Constitutional Background
Constitutionally, and within reason, the Federal Government can't make a law against guns, but perhaps it can make a law against criminals or insane people owning guns. Here, a criminal is anyone that's been convicted of a crime of violence or aggression. Alternatively, the Constitution allows States the autonomy to set punishment standards for crimes*.Cruel and unusual punishment is perhaps misunderstood by legal and moral scholars (meant torture originally in 1700's). So some constitutional scholars argue that death penalty is not excessive, so long as a torture device (teg: "the knee splitter", rack, gibbet) is not used*.
The Premise
It is estimated that the percentage of murders and shootings with illegal guns is 97%*. It is also estimated that the percentage of those murderers with a previous criminal charge of violence is likely high, perhaps as high as 75%. This is the focus of people that are targeted with this "modest proposal."So with the 11,101* murders in year 2012 (about 50% black on black violence)... it is probable that with suitable punishment, drastic in this case, some percentage of these murders would be avoided in the future*. Of course this will require time for the policy to become recognized and indoctrinated in the young socially, perhaps one to three generations with this consistent law. Furthermore, this law can only be effective, if known and announced as "A DEFINITE" punishment outcome for those that break this social rule (i.e. law). It can only be maximally effective if CONSISTENTLY applied across all States, and in all situations, after a fair trial concludes with a guilty verdict*.
Some Detail
An unsavory assertion is that the more everyone in a society can comprehend and witness the punishment consequences of bad behavior, the better this punishment will serve as a lesson to discourage this behavior. Mankind is a social creature, and public punishment and humiliation is strongly avoided. Therefore the unsavory additional proposal is to have legally declared death sentences announced and watchable on YouTube or similar social or government media. Perhaps even the young, if approved by their parents or guardians, should be encouraged to watch these lessons.It should be understood that this policy, by necessity, must also be employed against "first time" illegal gun users (in course of a violent crime) even if they have no previous history of violence. Likewise, anyone using even a legal a gun in a violent way (actual use, or concomitant violence, beyond mere threat) must also suffer the same penalty. There can be no first strike mercy by the court. Of course these conditions are not likely to be accepted by most societies, so no illusion exists that this will be possible in the near future.
The punishment must also be swift (less than 30 days), and unchallengeable (ordinarily). Theoretically, some innocent may be trapped in this policy, but even if the percent of errors were to be as high as 1% to 5%, this would be mathematically outweighed by the several thousand innocent lives it saves every
year.
Conclusion
It can only hypothesized how much gun violence can be prevented by a stout social policy that provided firm punishment, and rules for violent gun use. This number, many would agree would reduce murder by at least one percent. I would conjecture, if enforce properly, would reduce gun murder by 10% to 50%. Especially if social ostracism of the guilty were also to be employed on the news, and possible public square. That could mean saving as many as five thousand lives per year.
____________________Footnotes___________________
* In actuality the Constitution does not allow States the autonomy to set standards for their penal and legal system, but quite the opposite--the Constitution prohibits the Federal government power over crime and punishment, and acknowledges that power was kept purposely by the States, and never handed to Washington.
*Cruel and unusual meant torture http://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendments/amendment-viii
* Illegal guns kill over 80% http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/most-guns-mass-shootings-obtained-legally
* Murder in year 2012 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34996604
* The never ending debate on efficacy of capital punishment is not argued herein. One study showing that death by state reduces murder is https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjPkojQ6eHNAhUQwmMKHdLgDa0QFggeMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wsj.com%2Farticles%2FSB119397079767680173&usg=AFQjCNEv6OEvmJ5o24M9bO0-4xkxPv6OiA&sig2=W31rI7htyGQOxeTObo8_WA
