max torque - i don’t know if you came here via the gun control thread, but i was hoping for links to less obviously biased sources than ‘colonel dan’s internet publication for real americans’. in any event, here in texas we allow concealed carry. however, there are certain establishments that forbid concealed guns. since the only people who abide by that are ‘law abiding citizens’, it makes them an easy target for gun crime. i propose (for starters) that establishments which overrule a state’s concealed carry allowance should be required to provide for their own private police protection and emergency medical assistance for violent crime related emergencies. since the potential for folks in any given situation to be armed decreases the potential for violent criminal activity, establishments that, on their own accord, forbid guns should not be entitled to taxpayer funded protection.
my other proposal is that, considering the importance of an armed population towards crime reduction, the government should do more to help arm its citizens. for instance, in inner city housing projects where there is plenty of gun violence, there are a lot of people that can’t afford to go out and legally buy a decent gun. why should the second amendment only apply to those of means? are the poor not entitled to the right to bear arms? the government should subsidize the gun industry to bring down the price of guns and get them into the hands of those that need them most.
beer, i was just about to post this unbiased source that states that virginia’s project exile cut the homicide rate by 36% in the first year: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nyw/project_exile/html/proj_exile_exec_summ.htm
no need to post the nra summary, the doj site describes it very clearly.