Firearms and their relation to crime figures

[Bal-Sagoth]

Yeah, shitloads of AKs are in the hands of civilian owners all over the world, but the purpose of this gun was not to shoot at old cans and targets but at enemy soldiers.
And so is the intended purpse for a lot of weapons, except for dedicated hunting weapons and specialized target shooting weapons.

Not true actually. The semi-auto variant of both the AR-15,AK-47, FN FAL, P90,(insert random Assault/Battle Rifle here) etc etc etc are all marketed and sold as sporting rifles. The majority of these guns will only see range time.

If you want to attack guns at least go for the gun crime source and talk about handguns. Those big bad black rifles might look menacing and give liberals and gun haters the chills but the gun violence trend goes something like:

1. Handguns
2. Shotguns
3. Rifles (this category includes the dreaded AR-15 and AK-47 as well as things such as the bolt action 22).

With number one taking a big lead above the other two.

 

[Sander]

Because I have a C&R FFL (curio and relic federal firearms license) every year the BATF sends me a book with all the federal laws and regulations concerning firearms.

The regulations are printed in really small type on paper similar to what you'd find in a bible. 700 pages of rules and regulations I must know and follow to their interpretation of the law or I roll the dice on going to jail.

That's just the federal guidelines. In addition, I must know all the rules and regulations of every state I do business with or even just travel through while possessing a firearm.

We have more than enough fucking regulations. I'm also curious to know what kind of moron actually thinks any regulation or law ever stopped a crime?

Laws and regulations stop plenty of crimes. They just don't stop all of them.

 

[Hassknecht]

Yeah, shitloads of AKs are in the hands of civilian owners all over the world, but the purpose of this gun was not to shoot at old cans and targets but at enemy soldiers.
And so is the intended purpse for a lot of weapons, except for dedicated hunting weapons and specialized target shooting weapons.

Not true actually. The semi-auto variant of both the AR-15,AK-47, FN FAL, P90,(insert random Assault/Battle Rifle here) etc etc etc are all marketed and sold as sporting rifles. The majority of these guns will only see range time.

If you want to attack guns at least go for the gun crime source and talk about handguns. Those big bad black rifles might look menacing and give liberals and gun haters the chills but the gun violence trend goes something like:

1. Handguns
2. Shotguns
3. Rifles (this category includes the dreaded AR-15 and AK-47 as well as things such as the bolt action 22).

With number one taking a big lead above the other two.

Hey, I don't want to attack guns at all. I love guns.
What I wrote is not about gun crime. It's all about the fact that these weapons were originally designed as tools of war.
Yes, the semiautomatic variants are sold as sporting weapons.
But that's just an alibi. For target shooting you don't need a military intermediate cartridge. For long range you can use the wide range of civilian rifle rounds, for closer range you can use the small rounds like .22.
The assault rifle class was invented for having controllable automatic fire. That is the idea behind the intermediate round, which came first into live with the Sturmgewehr 44.
There was a need to have a longer range and more stopping power than submachine guns, but full size rifle rounds were overkill at shorter ranges up to 300m.
Very few people need that at the range.
It's nice to have a cartridge with weak recoil and high muzzle velocity, but are they necessary? No, but it's fun as hell.

I absolutely understand the appeal behind firearms and civilian versions of military rifles. As I said, I love guns, their technique and warfare in general.
I have nothing against people using them, but I'd like them to be honest about it. It's not a sporting device. It's a weapon, and even if you only shoot it at the range, it's fucking cool. And that's fine and I agree. There's no need to pretend that it's some kind of adult and honest sport to shoot at cans. It's fun, and nothing more.

I want to point out yet again, as some people here have shown the amazing ability to misunderstand every post that I made so far that I did not write anything about crime involving guns or banning guns or anything. Please keep that in mind because I really don't want to write that shit again in even easier words just so you understand.

I won't write anything about DammitBoy's posts anymore, because I'm getting tired of explaining the same point over and over again just to see him deliberately misunderstanding it.
But now I see were your nickname came from.

 

[Crni Vuk]

No one is denying that firearms can be used as efficient killing machines honey, they wouldn't be much of a deterrent if they were not... .

My bad then. I probably missunderstood your intentions.

When self-defense is given as the reason (presumably why someone would be carrying a handgun) it immediately begs the question of why not use a taser or other non-lethal defense weapon instead?

HAHAHAHAHA............(says to guy with gun) please hold still while I taze you! Not so helpful when your attacker has a gun himself. Besides the mere sight of a gun and most criminals will bolt. No fuss, no muss.

I dont argue that a gun might be a more effective "object" (in general but that really depends on the situation, the skills of the user).

But letz assume you have a situation where someone is standing behind you aiming at your head with a gun then its not really important WHAT kind of object for defence you use in that moment youre screwed regardless if you would get out a taser or gun now the chance is high that the criminal will simply shoot you. Even my martial arts trainer tells me that if someone is pointing with a gun at you you better do what he tells you.

 

[DammitBoy]

Laws and regulations stop plenty of crimes.

Name one

Hey, I don't want to attack guns at all. I love guns.
What I wrote is not about gun crime. It's all about the fact that these weapons were originally designed as tools of war.

For target shooting you don't need a military intermediate cartridge.

This thread IS about gun crime, try to stay on topic please. It's also not about a question of what you think we 'need'.

My argument is that guns are used for self-defense much more often than they are used for crime and regulations and laws meant to curb crime only restrict law abiding citizens from defending themselves.

For self-defense I want the most effective weapons available - so owning weapons 'meant for war' only make sense in that regard.

Criminals, by definition, don't obey laws. No law or regulation will stop a criminal intent on depriving me of my property or my rights.

 

[Sander]

Name one

All crimes are stopped partially by laws and regulations. Because while there are psychopaths and criminals of 'necessity'(like drug addicts who can see no other way to get their next fix) out there, for a lot of criminals it's simply about economic opportunism. Laws (or rather, the punishments in those laws) are deterrents for criminals, and when the chance of being caught is high enough and the punishment is severe enough those crimes will occur less often.

Many criminals aren't criminals just to be criminals. They're criminals because it's profitable. Laws and regulations can make being a crime less profitable, and that directly impacts the likelihood that crime is committed.

Plus, there are plenty of people who will not do something when it is illegal. Not because the thing itself offends their sensibilities, but simply because it's illegal.

So yes, there are plenty of times when laws and regulations have stopped a crime. Of course, you'll never hear about those cases because "John didn't rob someone" isn't ever going to be noted anywhere.

 

[Crni Vuk]

I guess its true what they say Opportunity makes thieves.

 

[DammitBoy]

Name one

All crimes are stopped partially by laws and regulations. Because while there are psychopaths and criminals of 'necessity'(like drug addicts who can see no other way to get their next fix) out there, for a lot of criminals it's simply about economic opportunism. Laws (or rather, the punishments in those laws) are deterrents for criminals, and when the chance of being caught is high enough and the punishment is severe enough those crimes will occur less often.

Many criminals aren't criminals just to be criminals. They're criminals because it's profitable. Laws and regulations can make being a crime less profitable, and that directly impacts the likelihood that crime is committed.

Plus, there are plenty of people who will not do something when it is illegal. Not because the thing itself offends their sensibilities, but simply because it's illegal.

So yes, there are plenty of times when laws and regulations have stopped a crime. Of course, you'll never hear about those cases because "John didn't rob someone" isn't ever going to be noted anywhere.

Nonsense. America has craploads of laws and puts more of it's citizens in prison than any other country in the world. If laws and punishment stopped crime - we'd have none instead of the highest crime stats in the world.

this american guard dog will stop more crime than any law

 

[Sander]

Nonsense. America has craploads of laws and puts more of it's citizens in prison than any other country in the world. If laws and punishment stopped crime - we'd have none instead of the highest crime stats in the world.

The benchmark is an absence of all crime? That's just silly.

There are groups of criminals that are going to be criminals no matter the punishment or laws: the drug addicts who need a score, the people who because of socio-economic and cultural situations can't make a living or survive without becoming a criminal. For those people, stricter laws won't decrease their criminality, though it can dissuade them from certain types of criminal behavior. Then there are sociopaths and other mentally deficient who are criminals because they can be criminals.

But for the group of people that are criminals not out of necessity, but because it's economically profitable for them, laws and punishments certainly do matter.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Nonsense. America has craploads of laws and puts more of it's citizens in prison than any other country in the world. If laws and punishment stopped crime - we'd have none instead of the highest crime stats in the world.

I think it is more about the aspect of deterrence. Laws dont stop crimes from people which chose to be criminals (like Sander explains) but it might change the impression of some which think about it if it is worth to take the risk or not. Just like weapons for self defence which works only because of deterence (like you explained). Otherwise it would be useless to have either laws or weapons in general if not at least some people would fear the consquences of their actions.

 

[Hassknecht]

Laws actually create crime.
Without laws, there'd be no crime.

 

[fedaykin]

Laws actually create crime.
Without laws, there'd be no crime.

That's only if you take 'crime' in the strict, legalistic sense of the word. If there are no written down laws voted on by a parliament or ruler, then indeed, there's no crime. But that won't prevent undesirable things that laws are intended to reduce from happening.

 

[DammitBoy]

I think it is more about the aspect of deterrence. Laws dont stop crimes from people which chose to be criminals (like Sander explains) but it might change the impression of some which think about it if it is worth to take the risk or not. Just like weapons for self defence which works only because of deterence (like you explained). Otherwise it would be useless to have either laws or weapons in general if not at least some people would fear the consquences of their actions.

Yeah, I don't think you and sander are likely experts on criminals and how they think or what their motivation is.

Most criminals are idiots who cause a lot of damage before they get caught. Most never think of the consequences, most think they will never get caught, some don't give a shit if they're caught.

I'll tell you what a criminal really worries about - getting shot by his intended victim. Plenty of data out there to support that. Feel free to look it up. Criminals tend to target defenseless victims. That's why they love 'gun free zones' where they are assured zero percent of their victims will be armed.

 

[Sander]

Yeah, I don't think you and sander are likely experts on criminals and how they think or what their motivation is.

Most criminals are idiots who cause a lot of damage before they get caught. Most never think of the consequences, most think they will never get caught, some don't give a shit if they're caught.

I'll tell you what a criminal really worries about - getting shot by his intended victim. Plenty of data out there to support that. Feel free to look it up. Criminals tend to target defenseless victims. That's why they love 'gun free zones' where they are assured zero percent of their victims will be armed.

That's absolutely true. But the fact that that's true speaks to the idea that they're rational people who evaluate risk, no?

As I said, lots of idiots, drug addicts, sociopaths, people with no other option who are criminals and won't change. But there are also plenty of criminals of opportunity. You just lump all criminals together, which is short-sighted and unrealistic.

 

[DammitBoy]

As I said, lots of idiots, drug addicts, sociopaths, people with no other option who are criminals and won't change. But there are also plenty of criminals of opportunity. You just lump all criminals together, which is short-sighted and unrealistic.

Short-sighted and unrealistic in what respect? When a criminal breaks into my home while my wife and kids are sleeping or tries to carjack my vehicle - I don't give two shits what his motivation might be.

I'm going to shoot him repeatedly until he is no longer a threat regardless of his background.

You can feel free to have a dialogue with him and feel his pain while he ties your family up and rapes your spouse.

 

[Sander]

Short-sighted and unrealistic in what respect? When a criminal breaks into my home while my wife and kids are sleeping or tries to carjack my vehicle - I don't give two shits what his motivation might be.

I'm going to shoot him repeatedly until he is no longer a threat regardless of his background.

You can feel free to have a dialogue with him and feel his pain while he ties your family up and rapes your spouse.

Nice straw man, DB. The subject was whether laws and regulations deter some criminals. And they do. Whether you want to shoot them when they come into your home is hardly relevant to that issue.

 

[Crni Vuk]

try talking sense in to a brick ... (really not meant offensive). But you seem to talk about a whole different situation from YOUR perspective and then ask us (Sander and me) what we understand from crime ? One has not to be a expert in criminology to know that many people have different motivations and that some simply dont comit a crime because of fear to get caught and condemnet. Does that count for everyone ? Of course not. And I dont know from where you think either me or Sander would talk for all the criminals out there. All we say is that SOME criminals simply dont comit crimes because they FEAR the laws (and the consquences of them).

In fact many investigetions and laws have the target to not catch every criminal out there (thats impossibile and unrealistic to expect) but to make their life as difficult as possible. Particularly regarding organized crime. Some laws dont have a point and sure need to be reworked. But that doesnt count for all of them. Regardles if with weapons or anything else.

I see that you many times simply writte your oppinion and almost never leave room for interpretations or "gray" aras. Its either "DB says its good!" or "DB says its bad!". A bit to simple in my eyes. The worlds not black and white. And the same can be said about gouvernements (like the US or Germany).

 

[fedaykin]

I'll tell you what a criminal really worries about - getting shot by his intended victim.

Uh-uh. Except when the criminal has a gun too. Then they just try to outshoot the victim. If a potential victim can get armed, so can the criminal. Guns don't prevent crime.

 

[DammitBoy]

I'll tell you what a criminal really worries about - getting shot by his intended victim.

Uh-uh. Except when the criminal has a gun too. Then they just try to outshoot the victim. If a potential victim can get armed, so can the criminal. Guns don't prevent crime.

the criminals are already armed

---

criminal = someone willing to break the law

please explain how laws stop criminals if they are already wiling to break the law

laws only work on those who abide by them

 

[Sander]

the criminals are already armed

---

criminal = someone willing to break the law

please explain how laws stop criminals if they are already wiling to break the law

laws only work on those who abide by them

What, I haven't already? These aren't mindless "Hey a law let's break it" automatons we're talking about. When the risks are too great, they move on and do something. Or at least, a portion of criminals do that. Criminals aren't criminals just to be criminals (with some exceptions), they're criminals because they perceive it to be profitable. Hence, you can dissuade them (or some of them).

Your "They're breaking the law anyway they don't care about anything" spiel is simplistic and not representative of real people with actual motivations.