History lesson, the wild west was not that wild outside of the movies and Ned Buntline novels.
Growing up in Wyoming we all had guns, had rifle clubs in high school. Conservation officers patrolled vast areas of wilderness unarmed until meth labs started showing up. We do not shoot up the streets. In my life time, police officers that were killed in the line of duty were killed by cars not guns. By now you know what I think of your civilized city society.
Repealing the second amendment is not a solution. It is not even relevant.
Thinking that putting more restrictions on people who are not part of the gangs, or the drug trade, is going to stop gangsters from shooting each other is stupid. Sorry to be so blunt, but it is. It defies logic. Your bong contributes more to the violence than my target pistol because your pot purchase gives them the money so they can buy the gun on the black market.
Yes intellectually lazy, coming up some knee jerk nonsense that gets chuckles from criminologists and history. In every place including Canada and Europe the simple answer got only two results: Canada and Europe, no change. UK and Jamaica, got worse.
Yes I stand by lazy and stupid.
How about these solutions:
Violate federal gun laws like felon in possession, you go to federal court so some local DA can't plead it down. Like Project Exile, something NRA and Brady agree with.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Exile Beyond that:
move good jobs back in those areas (I don't buy the politician's theory.) give them an alternative to the gangs.
programs to move the talented entrepreneurs to more legitimate business models
pour money in schools, give good teachers incentives to go there, and combat anti intellectualism
improve community relations with police
end the drug war, take away their money and gangs will be back to using knives and chains like before Nixon's war on drugs.
I can think of these off the top of head and I'm just some tree hugging hick from Wyoming.
Which one of these would the NRA oppose?