Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Read the paper quoted. They make the case that states with more permissive gun laws have done worse than they would have with out them.
You would actually have to find some evidence that more guns and more usage would make things better. That target has proven very elusive.
Again I remain a supporter of permissive concealed carry and such. That is too give the good people a fair shake. But I would not be surprised if that does not come at the cost of more violent crime. However I would think the good guys will do better than they would if unarmed. Note however this may well be at a cost paid by the lower socioeconomic strata.
Which all by itself would make it unconstitutional, wouldn't you agree?
The discussion is in the contest of "America's unique gun violence"
But OK...
The reality however is that the implementation of permissive gun laws increases violent crime in the United States of America.
No the reality is you're dead wrong and refuse to accept facts that are contrary to your bias and agenda. Over the last 30 years gun laws have gotten more permissive, there are 5,000,000 new guns made or imported in the US every single year and yet "gun violence" has been dropping for decades. There are more law abiding citizens carrying guns every day, more than ever before, most states have passed laws allowing people to carry concealed firearms, and yet the "gun violence" rate is dropping.
The only places that have a "gun violence" problem are YOUR liberal utopia inner cities, and the culture there has nothing to do with American culture.
The reality is you don't know what you're talking about.
That is exactly the question, but the anti-gun crowd don't want to address it. Solving, or even ameliorating, the violence problem would involve holding criminals accountable for their crimes. It would also involve admitting that some traditional values are still desirable. It would involve day-to-day supervision and education of the criminal class.
Too much work for the anti crowd. It's much easier to blame the inanimate object than it is to admit that their approach is a miserable failure and actually start fixing the underlying problem.
It isn't just the anti-gun crowd. Some in the pro-gun crowd aren't effective either. Two parties approaching the problem in very simplistic ways. One party says "ban guns". The other party says "we need more guns". And then there are those who want to say some unmentionable things.
Holding criminals accountable is a good idea. We have done this by three strikes laws. If you commit murder, life in prison or the death penalty. A big question is this. Why doesn't life in prison or the death penalty deter some people from committing murder?
I also thought about this. A large numbers of murders are committed in the heat of arguments. Anger is a major driver of committing murder. Drugs, though a big contribution to the murders, is oddly not the largest. Alot of murders either have an unknown cause, or they occurred during arguments.
We should hold criminals accountable. Many values are a good thing. However, we needd to look at the circumstances of the murders. We rarely as WHY these murders take place.
No the reality is you're dead wrong and refuse to accept facts that are contrary to your bias and agenda. Over the last 30 years gun laws have gotten more permissive, there are 5,000,000 new guns made or imported in the US every single year and yet "gun violence" has been dropping for decades. There are more law abiding citizens carrying guns every day, more than ever before, most states have passed laws allowing people to carry concealed firearms, and yet the "gun violence" rate is dropping.
The only places that have a "gun violence" problem are YOUR liberal utopia inner cities, and the culture there has nothing to do with American culture.
The reality is you don't know what you're talking about.
More Bovine Excrement. The places that have been hard nosed about guns have actually done better than those states who have been permissive. So if you did not allow more guns you did better.
Read the damn paper. It is reasonable clear. It may be wrong, at least in part, but we will await the salvo from Lott et al.
Any of you folk who understand all this stuff clearly please explain New York City. Here is about the anti-gun utopia...yet they appear to be the safest larger city in the US. And they appear to hate all guns.
It isn't just the anti-gun crowd. Some in the pro-gun crowd aren't effective either. Two parties approaching the problem in very simplistic ways. One party says "ban guns". The other party says "we need more guns". And then there are those who want to say some unmentionable things.
True, there are mental midgets on both sides of the aisle. However, for the most part the pro-gun crowd just wants to be left alone. Very selfdom will you see a pro-gun guy telling an anti-gun guy that he has to buy a gun. Conversely, we constantly see the anti-gun crowd trying to keep us from buying guns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner
Holding criminals accountable is a good idea. We have done this by three strikes laws. If you commit murder, life in prison or the death penalty. A big question is this. Why doesn't life in prison or the death penalty deter some people from committing murder?
Honestly? Culture. In many cases these are individuals whose male role models spent a good deal of time in prison. I've worked with quite a few who managed to break the cycle, and it's usually the same story: dad was in prison, uncle was in prison, older cousin in prison. In some of the high crime areas, prison is an accepted part of life. It's a cycle that has repeated itself since the days of "equal rights" when minorities were pushed into the ghettos. The cycle could be broken, but it would take a major rewrite of our drug laws.
That being said, our system is entirely too lenient when it comes to prosecution of violent criminals. Too many are on the catch and release program, and committing more crimes once they're out.
A further step would be to stop the persecution of rehabilitated nonviolent convicts after they have served their sentence. If they're rehabilitated, why do we hang the albatross of "convicted felon" around their neck? Let them start with a clean record and give them their rights back.
Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner
I also thought about this. A large numbers of murders are committed in the heat of arguments. Anger is a major driver of committing murder. Drugs, though a big contribution to the murders, is oddly not the largest. Alot of murders either have an unknown cause, or they occurred during arguments.
True, but if you have such anger management issues that you can't keep from killing someone over a woman or a pack of cigarettes you probably shouldn't be on the streets to begin with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner
We should hold criminals accountable. Many values are a good thing. However, we needd to look at the circumstances of the murders. We rarely as WHY these murders take place.
And that's the main problem. Rather than ask why murders are committed, a certain segment of society prefers to blame the tool used. It's completely illogical, but it's true. Can you imagine looking at Hitler and saying that if he hadn't had access to gas chambers he wouldn't have committed mass genocide? Nobody would ever take you seriously. Yet, the anti-gun crowd uses that exact argument when it comes to violence in our culture.
It was when it was legal to bring a firearm on school property... amazing what happens when there's a perceived threat and folks rushing to get the tools of defense and are willing to stand their ground to protect life.
Now without calling in a threat... and have teachers/faculty trained and armed, with no knowledge made to the public of who is armed and who isnt... first time a school shooting takes place when there is an armed deterrence present. The lethality will be either greatly reduced or stopped before even getting lethal...
Takes waiting minutes for police to arrive to having the means of defense on site and able to react the moment it happens.
You tell me. Would you rather wait minutes for police to arrive? Or have someone to act on behalf of your defense right then and there that very second?
Sorry, but my original question has not been answered so far.
No we don't at all. The white homicide rate is like 2.7. Europe is roughly a third of that rate. This is clearly the effect of guns IMO.
And yet Plano, TX, in the middle of gun country Texas has a homicide rate of 1.4. That's less than France, Belgium and Finland and dozen other European countries.
Just some facts that don't support your conclusions;
Sweden has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world (31.6 per 100 citizens), but their homicide rate is 0.7
Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world (45.7 per 100 citizens), but their homicide rate is 0.6
Lithuania has one of the LOWEST gun ownership rates in the world (0.7 per 100 citizens), but their homicide rate is one of the highest at 6.7
Norway has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world (31.3 per 100 citizens), but their homicide rate is one of the lowest in the world at 0.56
Holding criminals accountable is a good idea. We have done this by three strikes laws. If you commit murder, life in prison or the death penalty. A big question is this. Why doesn't life in prison or the death penalty deter some people from committing murder?
The answer to your question is that the severity of punishment is not a deterrent to crime. The likelihood of getting caught IS a deterrent to crime.
Lol.
Let me get this straight - I made a comment about school killings in US vs the rest of the world combined. I was told that the huge rate here is due to "gun free zones". Then when I implied that other countries obviously don't allow any sort of "carry" stuff in schools, I'm given some story about 1973 Delaware. Wow, that's so profoundly logical
In Israel, you have to pass an armed guard to enter a school. Field trips are accompanied by an armed guard or a soldier. Teachers who have a license (which is, admittedly, tough to get if you are civilian. Retired or resigned military get it fairly easily) are allowed to have their weapon with them. How many school shootings in Israel have you heard about? And they're in the middle of a bunch of terrorists that are actively trying to kill them. Yet, they've had 2 school shootings in 15 years.
In Israel, you have to pass an armed guard to enter a school. Field trips are accompanied by an armed guard or a soldier. Teachers who have a license (which is, admittedly, tough to get if you are civilian. Retired or resigned military get it fairly easily) are allowed to have their weapon with them. How many school shootings in Israel have you heard about? And they're in the middle of a bunch of terrorists that are actively trying to kill them. Yet, they've had 2 school shootings in 15 years.
A multitude of countries have no school shootings whatsoever, and no guns in schools. What's your point exactly?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
