If criminals who commit violent acts were punished and kept in jail the public would not have the same people over and over again shooting people, this continues to happen because they know nothing is going to happen to them and they will be back on the streets in a few days so they can shoot someone else.
That's another thing that would require a tax increase.
As it is, we already have the highest per capita number of people incarcerated
We even beat out the two commie bloc countries that people often make "gulag jokes" about.
"More Jail" hasn't been a particularly effective strategy for us, and has produced a pattern of recidivism. If you're not going to do anything for the people while they're in and focus on some rehabilitative aspects, there's no reason to expect that their behavior will be any better when they leave. A person with no substantive opportunities is going to be in the exact same position when they get out in 5-10 years.
It makes people shutter to think of doing something like Norway does, and is often met with scoffs and snark about how "that looks like an apartment, they're being too soft on them, the bad guys deserve harsh punishment and conditions"
But their end results are better.
In the US, 76% of prisoners released are back in jail again within 5 years. In Norway, that number is 20%.
Since we now have fewer police on the job and the are not being supported by the justice system we have fewer arrests again this allows the same people to shoot people any time they like, who is going to stop them?
Police are often ill-equipped to prevent shootings, only respond to them. It's simple logistics. Even if we quadrupled the size of the police force in the US, they still can't be everywhere at once. Unless you want a full-blown police state?
We have health insurance to covers mental illness we just do not have a system in place to deliver the required help.
"We have health insurance" is a bit misleading. People who can hold down steady jobs that offer benefits have health insurance. And even many of those have high deductibles and out of pocket thresholds to meet before the insurance starts chipping in. Even if one is fortunate enough to have one of the retail jobs that offer a health plan, trying to meet a $2500 deductible and cover a $50 copay on monthly prescriptions is a daunting task for a person on a very fixed income.
And we have some free clinics in low income areas, but those hardly fill the gaps. If you're a broke mentally ill person, trying to find someone to give you a ride so you can wait 3 hours to see a nurse practitioner (with little to no training in psychiatry) so they can give you an Ativan and send you on your way is hardly suitable.
By the way most of the killings are done by people who do not go to a gun store and buy a gun. Look at the cities where the killings are happening, gun laws do not work, it is obvious for anyone who looks at the facts.
Almost every gun was legally purchased at some point if you trace it back far enough, it's not as if gang members are constructing Glock 9mm and 38 specials in their garage. If the problem is that unscrupulous people are selling guns to other unscrupulous people without a paper trail, that sounds like a justification for some restrictions on private sales, yes?
Saying this as a person who enjoys guns and owns several (from handguns all the way up a few decked out AR's), people are looking for a "best of both worlds" option where one doesn't exist. They want them to "crack down on the bad guys ability to get a gun", but refuse to entertain any law or measure that would inconvenience their gun buying experience in any way or impose anything they see as a "hassle".
