shoulda hadda gun?

[BigBallinStalin]

So then you agree with me that more damage is very likely to be done by a gun than by a knife or baseball bat. My point is that while the idea that people would simply use knives or baseball bats to commit certain crimes like muggings and such is true, yet situations as are being outlined in this thread are NOT going to happen with knives or baseball bats. It really takes a weapon of the caliber (heh) of a gun to do that sort of damage (which has nothing to do with shock value, but rather with efficiency).

I don't think I disagree with your broader points regarding gun control, but I did think that was important enough to point out, given your earlier statement.

I got'cha.

[Baron Von PWN]

It's pretty questionable that high prison populations reduce crime.

I would suggest that at least in the United States' "prison for cash system", high prison populations increase crime.

There is also the whole issue of creating a criminal underclass with harsh sentencing. Throw the book at a young guy in his late teens early twenties for trafficking and lock him up 10-15 years, all this guy will know is crime. He'll come out of jail and all his prime experience gaining years are gone, all he will know is what he learned from other inmates and what he knew when he was on the streets. When they get out they are very likely to fall back into the same habits.

Especially coming out of a system designed to doll out punishment and retribution upon the inmate. Such a system makes the inmate an enemy of lawful society and ultimately ensures the inmate sees lawful society as hostile.

[Baron Von PWN]

It's pretty questionable that high prison populations reduce crime.

I would suggest that at least in the United States' "prison for cash system", high prison populations increase crime.

There is also the whole issue of creating a criminal underclass with harsh sentencing. Throw the book at a young guy in his late teens early twenties for trafficking and lock him up 10-15 years, all this guy will know is crime. He'll come out of jail and all his prime experience gaining years are gone, all he will know is what he learned from other inmates and what he knew when he was on the streets. When they get out they are very likely to fall back into the same habits.

Especially coming out of a system designed to doll out punishment and retribution upon the inmate. Such a system makes the inmate an enemy of lawful society and ultimately ensures the inmate sees lawful society as hostile.

[BigBallinStalin]

It's pretty questionable that high prison populations reduce crime.

I would suggest that at least in the United States' "prison for cash system", high prison populations increase crime.

There is also the whole issue of creating a criminal underclass with harsh sentencing. Throw the book at a young guy in his late teens early twenties for trafficking and lock him up 10-15 years, all this guy will know is crime. He'll come out of jail and all his prime experience gaining years are gone, all he will know is what he learned from other inmates and what he knew when he was on the streets. When they get out they are very likely to fall back into the same habits.

Especially coming out of a system designed to doll out punishment and retribution upon the inmate. Such a system makes the inmate an enemy of lawful society and ultimately ensures the inmate sees lawful society as hostile.

It's a self-serving system, as far as the "necessity" of prisons is concerned. "We need more prisons because there's all this crime which is exacerbated by the prisons."

An unintended consequence du jour.

[BigBallinStalin]

It's pretty questionable that high prison populations reduce crime.

I would suggest that at least in the United States' "prison for cash system", high prison populations increase crime.

There is also the whole issue of creating a criminal underclass with harsh sentencing. Throw the book at a young guy in his late teens early twenties for trafficking and lock him up 10-15 years, all this guy will know is crime. He'll come out of jail and all his prime experience gaining years are gone, all he will know is what he learned from other inmates and what he knew when he was on the streets. When they get out they are very likely to fall back into the same habits.

Especially coming out of a system designed to doll out punishment and retribution upon the inmate. Such a system makes the inmate an enemy of lawful society and ultimately ensures the inmate sees lawful society as hostile.

It's a self-serving system, as far as the "necessity" of prisons is concerned. "We need more prisons because there's all this crime which is exacerbated by the prisons."

An unintended consequence du jour.

[Lootifer]

BUT BARON THAT LITTLE RASCAL GAVE UP HIS RIGHTS WHEN HE DECIDED TO TRAFFICKING EVIL EVIL DRUGS!!!!

[Woodruff]

It's pretty questionable that high prison populations reduce crime.

I would suggest that at least in the United States' "prison for cash system", high prison populations increase crime.

There is also the whole issue of creating a criminal underclass with harsh sentencing. Throw the book at a young guy in his late teens early twenties for trafficking and lock him up 10-15 years, all this guy will know is crime. He'll come out of jail and all his prime experience gaining years are gone, all he will know is what he learned from other inmates and what he knew when he was on the streets. When they get out they are very likely to fall back into the same habits.

Especially coming out of a system designed to doll out punishment and retribution upon the inmate. Such a system makes the inmate an enemy of lawful society and ultimately ensures the inmate sees lawful society as hostile.

I actually believe this is being done intentionally in the United States, as a means of continuing the prison population monetary system.

[Borderdawg]

It's pretty questionable that high prison populations reduce crime.

I would suggest that at least in the United States' "prison for cash system", high prison populations increase crime.

There is also the whole issue of creating a criminal underclass with harsh sentencing. Throw the book at a young guy in his late teens early twenties for trafficking and lock him up 10-15 years, all this guy will know is crime. He'll come out of jail and all his prime experience gaining years are gone, all he will know is what he learned from other inmates and what he knew when he was on the streets. When they get out they are very likely to fall back into the same habits.

Especially coming out of a system designed to doll out punishment and retribution upon the inmate. Such a system makes the inmate an enemy of lawful society and ultimately ensures the inmate sees lawful society as hostile.

I actually believe this is being done intentionally in the United States, as a means of continuing the prison population monetary system.

Unfortunately, I think you're right Woody. What kind of an idiot thought that private, for profit prisons were a good idea? Oh wait, I know! The scumbag judges, prosecutors and politicians that are lining their pockets with the kickbacks they receive for keeping these prisons full..... bastards......

[Borderdawg]

Some of you might find these interesting.


http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx


http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/0 ... any-worse/

[Woodruff]

It's pretty questionable that high prison populations reduce crime.

I would suggest that at least in the United States' "prison for cash system", high prison populations increase crime.

There is also the whole issue of creating a criminal underclass with harsh sentencing. Throw the book at a young guy in his late teens early twenties for trafficking and lock him up 10-15 years, all this guy will know is crime. He'll come out of jail and all his prime experience gaining years are gone, all he will know is what he learned from other inmates and what he knew when he was on the streets. When they get out they are very likely to fall back into the same habits.

Especially coming out of a system designed to doll out punishment and retribution upon the inmate. Such a system makes the inmate an enemy of lawful society and ultimately ensures the inmate sees lawful society as hostile.

I actually believe this is being done intentionally in the United States, as a means of continuing the prison population monetary system.

Unfortunately, I think you're right Woody. What kind of an idiot thought that private, for profit prisons were a good idea? Oh wait, I know! The scumbag judges, prosecutors and politicians that are lining their pockets with the kickbacks they receive for keeping these prisons full..... bastards......

Indeed. Along with the War on Drugs.

[Phatscotty]

Gun purchases in Colorado have spiked 40% since last Friday.

I hope this catches on

[Lootifer]

Gun purchases in Colorado have spiked 40% since last Friday.

I hope this catches on

Why would you wish for an increased number of gun ownership?

Gun ownership and its relationship to crime has been covered fairly regularly in this thread and the general consensus is that it doesnt really effect crime rates either way.

Shouldnt you be wishing for a decrease in crime (if you really cared about the wider issue - which I suspect you dont)?

[Night Strike]

Gun purchases in Colorado have spiked 40% since last Friday.

I hope this catches on

Why would you wish for an increased number of gun ownership?

Gun ownership and its relationship to crime has been covered fairly regularly in this thread and the general consensus is that it doesnt really effect crime rates either way.

Shouldnt you be wishing for a decrease in crime (if you really cared about the wider issue - which I suspect you dont)?

Even if it doesn't change the overall crime rate, it still has the chance to save that particular person. People buy guns to protect themselves, not to lower crime rate statistics.

[Woodruff]

Gun purchases in Colorado have spiked 40% since last Friday.

I hope this catches on

Does this actually make sense to you? Gun purchases, based only on that figure, is not necessarily a good thing...particularly given that emotional purchases like this are probably not being made by those trained with weaponry (who would likely already have them). I definitely do NOT hope that it "catches on" that the untrained start buying a lot of guns.

Gun purchases in Colorado have spiked 40% since last Friday.

I hope this catches on

Why would you wish for an increased number of gun ownership?

Gun ownership and its relationship to crime has been covered fairly regularly in this thread and the general consensus is that it doesnt really effect crime rates either way.

Shouldnt you be wishing for a decrease in crime (if you really cared about the wider issue - which I suspect you dont)?

Even if it doesn't change the overall crime rate, it still has the chance to save that particular person. People buy guns to protect themselves, not to lower crime rate statistics.

Untrained gun owners are much more likely to result in the death of themselves or a loved one, frankly. And a basic safety course is NOT enough to help someone in a situation where they believe they are involved with a home invasion.

[Phatscotty]

Gun purchases in Colorado have spiked 40% since last Friday.

I hope this catches on

Why would you wish for an increased number of gun ownership?

Gun ownership and its relationship to crime has been covered fairly regularly in this thread and the general consensus is that it doesn't really effect crime rates either way.

But, you assume that people are arming themselves to impact the crime rate??? That totally misses the point.

People are arming themselves so they can defend themselves, because a large majority of people realize that was the only possible way to stop that shooter.

However, I will bet you anything the crime rate drops. Will you stand by your opinion an take the bet?

How does your point hold up to a country which has one of the lowest homicide rates in the world?

[Army of GOD]

I regret making this thread

[Lootifer]

What do you mean stand by my opinion? I wouldnt take that bet; not because I am concerned your point is correct, but because I have no idea whether or not, in this particular situation, what impact increased gun ownership is going to have.

This was pretty much covered by my first post in this thread.

And your Swiss example is absurd. The cultural differences between the US and Switzerland are massive, no offense but the Swiss are far more disciplined than your average US citizen by a significant margin. Switzerland also has mandatory conscription, where every male, and a large portion of females are all trained how to use guns properly.

I have no problem with guns or liberal gun ownership laws. I just dont think it would -a- be a good idea where I live, and -b- in the US context is a fairly moot point; especially in the context of this discussion.

If we really wanted to have a discussion about how to prevent the recent tragedy gun laws would not even be part of it. In fact the main issue here, in my opinion, is the extreme failure of the relevant stakeholders (family, friends, schools, mental health services, etc) that let a clearly insane/imbalanced/batshit fucking crazy individual fall through each and every safety net and check.

[Phatscotty]

Fair enough.

Just curious, do you have any comments, as related to your initial post between us, on how the second largest mass shooting happened in Australia, which has one of the strictest gun laws in the world?

[PLAYER57832]

Untrained gun owners are much more likely to result in the death of themselves or a loved one, frankly. And a basic safety course is NOT enough to help someone in a situation where they believe they are involved with a home invasion.

[PLAYER57832]

People are arming themselves so they can defend themselves, because a large majority of people realize that was the only possible way to stop that shooter.

Sad, its attitudes like yours and your complete ignorance of why people are AGAINST guns that cause them to decide all guns are "bad", even for hunting and target shooting.

To a woman afraid for her kids' safety, worried about gangs, having a gun is not the "answer" -- it will most likely be used against her. And, she could care less about your "rights" compared to her right to see her kids grown. BUT-- if you explain that guns in rural areas mean hunting, that target shooting is a sport that can be managed, THEN you have some 'talking points".

For defense -- you need training, and most people don't have the time or ability or even someone capable to train them.

However, I will bet you anything the crime rate drops. Will you stand by your opinion an take the bet?

Correlation does not prove causation. Its likely the crime rate will go down, for a time, simply because people will be a tad more vigilant. Nothing to do with owning guns.

[Night Strike]

For defense -- you need training, and most people don't have the time or ability or even someone capable to train them.

So the answer is to ban guns in urban areas and any gun that's not used for hunting or sport?

[Lootifer]

For defense -- you need training, and most people don't have the time or ability or even someone capable to train them.

So the answer is to ban guns in urban areas and any gun that's not used for hunting or sport?

Thats the law in NZ fyi.

Not suggesting the US adopts that law; as you guys have your constitutional rights to consider.

Maybe a better solution in the US context is to incentivise or legislate proper and complete training for anyone wanting a gun for protection.

We do it for Cars (in NZ at least, not sure about the US driver licencing procedure), I dont see why you shouldnt need to do it for Guns as well. Both have huge potential to cause harm, so it is warranted in my opinion. And mandated training does nothing to infringe on your freedoms.

[Phatscotty]

People are arming themselves so they can defend themselves, because a large majority of people realize that was the only possible way to stop that shooter.

Sad, its attitudes like yours and your complete ignorance of why people are AGAINST guns that cause them to decide all guns are "bad", even for hunting and target shooting.

To a woman afraid for her kids' safety, worried about gangs, having a gun is not the "answer" -- it will most likely be used against her. And, she could care less about your "rights" compared to her right to see her kids grown. BUT-- if you explain that guns in rural areas mean hunting, that target shooting is a sport that can be managed, THEN you have some 'talking points".

For defense -- you need training, and most people don't have the time or ability or even someone capable to train them.

However, I will bet you anything the crime rate drops. Will you stand by your opinion an take the bet?

Correlation does not prove causation. Its likely the crime rate will go down, for a time, simply because people will be a tad more vigilant. Nothing to do with owning guns.

Even more sad is Americans who are too lazy to hold onto their freedom, and will trade it all away for the false promises and lies of the tiniest bit of security. And they say the most ridiculous things, like "most people don't have the time for training". FYI Player, you HAVE to get training before you can qualify for a conceal and carry permit, in my state anyways. I would not presume to magically know how much time everyone has or does not have, and then base my position on that assumption.

At least you admit that people being more vigilant will very likely reduce the crime rate, which is basically my entire point. "The price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilance". Thomas Jefferson said that, and it sure as in the hell explains why I am so vocal in these forums. I am vigilant against those who try to pawn off our Rights, our Freedom, and our Liberty.

[Night Strike]

For defense -- you need training, and most people don't have the time or ability or even someone capable to train them.

So the answer is to ban guns in urban areas and any gun that's not used for hunting or sport?

Thats the law in NZ fyi.

Not suggesting the US adopts that law; as you guys have your constitutional rights to consider.

Maybe a better solution in the US context is to incentivise or legislate proper and complete training for anyone wanting a gun for protection.

We do it for Cars (in NZ at least, not sure about the US driver licencing procedure), I dont see why you shouldnt need to do it for Guns as well. Both have huge potential to cause harm, so it is warranted in my opinion. And mandated training does nothing to infringe on your freedoms.

Can we also mandate training before voting, before speaking, before assembling, etc.? All of these rights are supposed to be equally protected in our Constitution, yet only one right tries to be repeatedly taxed and regulated to no longer be accessible.

Let's not forget, this shooter in Colorado had a completely legal right to own a gun. He had no history of mental illness (that's known/diagnosed), no criminal record, and is a US citizen. That means his right to own a gun cannot be taken away. We as a society just have to face the fact that this person chose to do evil with his rights. You cannot legislate that away. This person should not be used to indict the rest of society that uses their guns in a legal manner.

[Phatscotty]

It's the person, not the gun.

Now, if people want to talk about why some of our people seem to have nothing to live for, seem to be completely empty inside, seem to not care about others around them, seem to think they are not going to be held accountable by a higher power, have trouble deciding right from wrong, were not taught "thou shall not kill"......I will be more than happy to give a more detailed opinion.