Firearms and their relation to crime figures
- Thread starter .Pixote.
- Start date
I've robbed hundreds of people because it's so easy and I never get caught, so that's where.DammitBoy said:
More than that, people are people. Criminals aren't a special class of people who commit crimes just for the fun of it (though some of them undoubtedly are like that). If you think criminals don't respond to incentives and punishment like every other human being does, you're basically calling them a separate group of humans. I don't believe that - they choose one thing and we choose another, but they're still people. People that are going to have live with the consequences of their choices.
More than that, it's been shown over and over again that harsher laws and increased chance of arrest reduce crime incidence.
Sure, that has nothing to do with inequality, inner-city urban poverty, and a host of other socio-economic factors. As I've said several times, there are plenty of groups of criminals that won't respond to those incentives, because they have little choice (then again, they do respond to those incentives by steering away from heavily punished crimes). There isn't a homogenous group of criminals, and treating them as such is idiotic.DammitBoy said:
Anyway, Freakonomics has a pretty good piece on the economic incentives of criminals.
There's also this:
http://law.jrank.org/pages/802/Crime-Causation-Economic-Theories.html
And there are plenty of other sources, including one of the articles linked earlier in this thread on gun control and the black market.
The fact that they go for defenseless victims over defensible victims alone should tell you that criminals are rational and respond to simple incentives.
But you can go on believing that a very complex issue like this can be disproven by saying "THE US HAS LOTS OF CRIME HENCE WRONG"(the reasoning "LOTS OF CRIMES AND GUNS, HENCE GUNS CAUSE CRIME" is pretty much equivalent to that).
Wintermind
Vault Senior Citizen
To be fair, you only have crime because of laws. No laws, no crime, since you have to break the law to commit the crime. More laws do not necessarily mean less crime. Prohibition increased crime, hugely. Ditto things like the NFA or AWB. Hell, the BATFE can make what amount to completely arbitrary rulings that can land people in jail for years. So while the fear of arrest, successful prosecution and jail time may deter some criminals, those are typically those that have far more to loose than those who don't. I won't go around stealin' shit and murdering people because I have things to lose. Accounts won't embezzle money because they don't want to go to jail. People who have grown up in a subsect of society that glorifies crime, glorifies taking the charge, glorifies havin' the poh-leece comin' after you.
Are you serious ? Because thats maybe nice as a joke here and there. But one cant really have that as concept for a society. Some laws are questionable some are completly useless. But many have a meaning. A usefull one. And many do actually work.Wintermind said:
I am not sure. But anarchy is a utopian view. Without laws and a system which is administrating them it would simply end in chaos. And no one with a sane mind can really want that.
Crni Vuk said:
He has a point...but no laws, no crime is a slippery slide.
I wouldn't want to live in a society without fair and just laws. Think of Somalia, where the gun decides right and wrong. The country isn't total anarchy, but it isn't far off compared to most modern countries.
Wintermind
Vault Senior Citizen
Crni Vuk said:
Some laws are the reason for a high crime rate. Especially when the police (or the prosecutor, perhaps) try to put as many crimes as a single person as possible. The crime rate isn't just the robbery, it's all the shit that gets tacked on. Assault by pointing. use of a firearm in commission of a crime. Illegal possession of a firearm. Stricter gun laws can *increase* crime, not just by making what was previously legal, illegal, but by allowing the police/prosecutor to charge more crimes.
It's not simply that more laws means criminals will back down, you need to have harser punishments on convictions. If, hypothetically, laws were passed that upon a successful conviction of murder, you were sentenced to death as a minimum, I think you'd see far less homicide in america. Especially if it was coupled with a legal staff and policeforce that could actually capture and convict criminals, and I think you'd see a massive drop in homicide, gun related or no.
Yeah, that is more or less a joke. I made that the page before, too. In the strict sense of the word, yeah, law creates crime, but that just means that what was crime before is now just undesirable behaviour.Crni Vuk said:
Well, I guess that the ultimate goal for a utopian society would be that there'd be no need for laws anymore.
I doubt that mankind will ever reach that level, though. I mean, people still need religion to sleep sound at night.
But really, the US sounds like it's a warzone. Apparently, you can't walk the streets unarmed without getting mugged on a daily basis and if you don't have at least one weapon in every room in your house, your family will be raped once a week.
Bal-Sagoth
Water Chip? Been There, Done That
Yes, it sounds like a warzone indeed. Apparently no one can own a semi-automatic sporting rifle with over a ten round capacity without wanting to go on a mass shooting spree instead of just taking it to the range like the vast majority of said owners of such weapons do.
It goes both ways.
It goes both ways.
Now I understand what you mean. Why not explaining that simply as that. Others here already said it a few times. Some laws are bad, others are good. Some keep criminals away others just increase the rate of crimes (statisticaly). But that doesnt mean we can simply all lump it together just as we can not put all criminals in the same boat. I just mean the "laws cause crime" line is a bit ... to simple. You know like the chicken and the egg. What came first ? The crime or the law ?Wintermind said:
Also Anarchy =/= Chaos. Anarchy is a utopian view it is not a mad-max-like-apoacylse setting. Nature is a good example of anarchy because there is no authorty. Yet its not a chaos.
What he means is the impression you get when you read some of the coments by the "weapon-lovers" particularly when it comes to self dence. It sounds like the US must be a real dangerous place to life in when you really need a high caliber rifle to defend your self or your family - Is the police incompetent or something ?. Like because really serious crimes happen everywhere on a daly basis all over your neighbourhood whole families getting raped and killed by crazy gangs or something. Which begs the question why living there in the first place ? Now I know comparing Germany and the US 1:1 doesnt work. But I never ever experienced the feeling that people here REALLY need weapons to defend them self and I guess most people feel relatively save. Sure the one or other might have them for that. I dont say its true but I just get the feeling when reading the comments some post that the US is a culture made only about agressions, fighting crime and violance. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.Bal-Sagoth said:
You can't have it both ways boys.
You can't on one side of the argument claim that america has huge amounts of violence and blame guns and then say americans are paranoid for owning guns because surely there isn't that much violent crime.
Well, you can - but it doesn't make you look that bright.
You can't on one side of the argument claim that america has huge amounts of violence and blame guns and then say americans are paranoid for owning guns because surely there isn't that much violent crime.
Well, you can - but it doesn't make you look that bright.
DammitBoy said:
It's catch 22...less gun might mean less violence, with less violence, people will feel the need for less gun, blah blah. But then again some people just love the mechanics of firearms...what's your thoughts on that DammitBoy - do you value the feeling of protection, that the firearms give you - or the aesthetics of a beautifully crafted item - or the power a weapon can have over other people.
D
Deleted member 53669
Guest
fedaykin said:
Oh my god, it's like playing Call of Duty all over again!
.Pixote. said:
I'm not interested in having power over people - I'm interested in people not having the advantage of power over me and mine.
I have some firearms specifically for protection. I collect firearms for the aesthetics, for the marvel of their engineering, for the handcrafted element, for their historical significance, etc. etc.
None of those things are the reason for the 2nd amendment and firearm ownership in america though. Yes, there is the right to self-defense aspect, but really - the 2nd amendment is about a government having a hard time becoming despotic if the entire populace is armed.
Look at the middle east right now, shitloads of people repressed by their governments for decades easily, because the government has a monopoly on firearm ownership.
In the 20th century alone, governments are responsible for the death of over 220 million of their own citizens. That's not counting wars or anything else. I can't understand how anyone can be a big fan of only the military and police having firearms - unless that same government has brainwashed them from birth to think that way.
I love the shooting sports I participate in, but that's just gravy. The real reason is individual liberty...
Maybe everyone in the US should compulsory wear side arms. When you are old enough to drive, then your old enough to pack that gun. The rate of firearm deaths would skyrocket, or would it? I wonder what the statistics for firearm crime is like in Israel.
))<>(( said:fedaykin said:
Oh my god, it's like playing Call of Duty all over again!
Actually there are 3 ways how to do things. The right way, the wrong way and the Max power way. Its basically the wrong way. But its faster
Hahaaaa... that some kind of joke I guess. Do you konw how easy it is to get a gun or weapon in many of those places ? Certainly almost as easy like in some of the US states. If not even easier.DammitBoy said:
The problem why some of those places are such "shit holes" is because you can get there an Ak for a slice of bread if you want so. I cant see how Somalia, the Kongo or Nigera have become better places simply because the population there is better armed then any US civlian. I cant see how the Kosovo today is any "saver" place. If anything its more chaotic then it ever was before Yugoslavia fall apart. People there have now their freedom but the USUAL citizens regardless if Kosovo Albans or Serbians have to deal with the armed part of their extremistic groups. If there is something worse then people which go nutz then it are armed people which go nutz.
Moar weapons havnt solved ANY problem in those places. Its not like many of the groups Sadam fought or the rebels in africa have no access to guns - You know that is actualy ONE of the main sources in those places to easy access to weapons. And if the US would really become tomorrow a oppresive system (how do you know its not already that ) would the guns you have at home really help to keep the military at bay ? You have been with the US Marines if I remember correctly so tell me do you think they cant handle it ? And I cant remember the last time you mentioned stinger missiles or javelin anti tank rockets beeing part of your collection.