Firearms and their relation to crime figures
- Thread starter .Pixote.
- Start date
http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=858461#858461))<>(( said:fedaykin said:
Oh my god, it's like playing Call of Duty all over again!
Wintermind
Vault Senior Citizen
Crni Vuk said:
The law. You can't be a criminal until you have a law to break.
.Pixote. said:
Violent, bloody, transitional period (probably), followed by relative peace. I think if you were to do this from the get go in a smaller town/city, you might actually see some good results. Of course this environment might not exactly lend it self to crime.
I would guess that 19th century frontier towns would be good examples of what would happen in these cases. I don't know much about them so I can't say either way, but it'd be interesting to examine.Wintermind said:
TheWesDude
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
in the US the 2nd amendment exists for 2 reasons.
1) at the time of its founding there was no standing military, mostly it was the common man, and they wanted to make sure that they could have firearms in case of need.
2) the founding people firmly believed in checks and balances. LOTS of checks and balances. there are NUMEROUS checks and balances to protect the institution of the government from the common man. the 2nd amendment was the balance AGAINST the government to make sure that the common man could defend themselves not only from localized crime but also if needed could form militias and take action against the government if needed.
most anti-gun people focus on #1 and how irrelevant it is, and completely ignore #2.
while at the time #1 was the more important aspect, as time went on while it was marginalized, #2 became more important and relevant.
in a locality without social order, more guns does "prevent crime" but ONLY when the distribution of those guns is balanced not only among those trying to usher in a new socio-political order, but also those who like the current one. that is NOT the case in most of these countries in africa i keep seeing cited. for the most part its the general populace who is not armed, or armed very well, and the local "criminal empire/warlord" who has the advantage.
1) at the time of its founding there was no standing military, mostly it was the common man, and they wanted to make sure that they could have firearms in case of need.
2) the founding people firmly believed in checks and balances. LOTS of checks and balances. there are NUMEROUS checks and balances to protect the institution of the government from the common man. the 2nd amendment was the balance AGAINST the government to make sure that the common man could defend themselves not only from localized crime but also if needed could form militias and take action against the government if needed.
most anti-gun people focus on #1 and how irrelevant it is, and completely ignore #2.
while at the time #1 was the more important aspect, as time went on while it was marginalized, #2 became more important and relevant.
in a locality without social order, more guns does "prevent crime" but ONLY when the distribution of those guns is balanced not only among those trying to usher in a new socio-political order, but also those who like the current one. that is NOT the case in most of these countries in africa i keep seeing cited. for the most part its the general populace who is not armed, or armed very well, and the local "criminal empire/warlord" who has the advantage.
Wintermind said:
Every single time firearms restrictions are lifted or additional rights are re-instated in the U.S. - you hear the same hue and cry from the media and the left.
"Blood will run in the streets!!"
Never happens though. Fer instance, when Florida started 'allowing' it's citizens the right to concealed carry, the liberal left was screaming that gun crimes and murder would skyrocket.
In fact, as always - violent crime dropped. When Kennessaw, GA made it mandatory for all homeowners to own a handgun - violent crime dropped. Which is kinda odd, since Kennessaw is only about 15 miles from downtown Atlanta, GA - which has horrible violent crime figures...
Whenever a municipality has banned handgun ownership - violent crime has risen.
UncannyGarlic
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
It was more because the founding fathers expected revolutions to happen fairly regularly in the states. They wanted to empower the people to be able to carry out those revolutions if they were unable to peacefully change the government as happened with the disaster known as the Articles of Confederation.TheWesDude said:
Not really given the differences in population sizes, population density, laws, law enforcement, etc.Sander said:
No, the whole reason for the bill of rights was to restrict government from interferring with certain rights that all people are born with - not rights passed out like party favors from benevolent governments.
Restrictions on government to insure individual rights.
The 2nd amendment, as decided repeatedly (even recently) by the supreme court, is an individual right protected from government restrictions.
Restrictions on government to insure individual rights.
The 2nd amendment, as decided repeatedly (even recently) by the supreme court, is an individual right protected from government restrictions.
Does the initial intent matter when evaluating the law?
The Supreme Court is there to evaluate whether a law is being applied properly and how it should be interpreted.DammitBoy said:
I'm talking about is more practical: does the intent matter in evaluating the usefulness of a law? I'd much rather look at the result rather than the intent.
Sander said:
I'm guessing you're not a student of US Law, because, well, yes it does, for them. The intent of the writers of the constitution in writing up the constitution, bill of rights and amenders for the later amendments is absolutely paramount in making legal arguments as to the application of said laws. Maybe you don't like it, but it kind of falls outside of the topic here to argue whether that's a good thing, when it's a fact that this is how US law works.
Garlic said:
I'd argue it was more because the US needed an armed militia to fight off the British or any other power. And secondarily to enable the people to fight any tyranny that might be in place. The first part is often forgotten though, the same is true for the US president must be born in the US. The logic behind said laws is becoming archaic.
But sadly, the need for legislation to be flexible and transitive because realities change is something US legislation has never been very open to. But again, that's a bit of a different topic.
DammitBoy said:
Well criminals aren't fools...why risk death if you attempt to rob someone, or a group of people carrying firearms - logically people with bad intentions wouldn't take that kind of risk, unless they are desperate, or insane. But with such a high rate of illegal drug taking in the States both the desperate and insane, fully armed, are a frightful combination.
In this argument we often forget about all those people who are accidentally killed by firearms...hunters, curious kids, morons...
Code:
In the U.S. for 2006, there were 30,896 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 16,883; Homicide 12,791; Accident 642; Legal Intervention 360; Undetermined 220. This makes firearms injuries one of the top ten causes of death in the U.S. The number of firearms-related injuries in the U.S., both fatal and non-fatal, increased through 1993, declined to 1999, and has remained relatively constant since. However, firearms injuries remain a leading cause of death in the U.S., particularly among youth (CDC, 2001) (CDC, 2006).
Code:
CAUSES OF DEATH, USA, 2002 FORMAL NAME......INFORMAL NAME...............% ALL DEATHS
(1) Diseases of the heart ..................heart attack (mainly)...........28.5%
(2) Malignant neoplasms.....................cancer..........................22.8%
(3) Cerebrovascular disease.................stroke..........................6.7%
(4) Chronic lower respiratory disease.......emphysema, chronic bronchitis....5.1%
(5) Unintentional injuries .................accidents.......................4.4%
(6) Diabetes mellitus.......................diabetes........................3.0%
(7) Influenza and pneumonia.................flu & pneumonia..................2.7%
(8) Alzheimer's Disease.....................Alzheimer's senility.............2.4%
(9) Nephritis and Nephrosis.................kidney disease...................1.7%
(10) Septicemia............................systemic infection................1.4%
(11) Intentional self-harm..................suicide..........................1.3%
(12) Chronic Liver/Cirrhosis................liver disease....................1.1%
(13) Essential Hypertension.................high blood pressure..............0.8%
(14) Assault...............................homicide.........................0.7%
(15) All other causes.......................other...........................17.4%
Wintermind
Vault Senior Citizen
Frontier towns also had a wildly different idea of 'murder'. And death investigation for that matter. Or law enforcement.
On the other hand, if you amend my original idea to exclude anyone had been convicted of a violent crime (perhaps just a violent crime involving a firearm), and did it in a city like, say, baltimore, well, it'd be interesting to say the least.
On the other hand, if you amend my original idea to exclude anyone had been convicted of a violent crime (perhaps just a violent crime involving a firearm), and did it in a city like, say, baltimore, well, it'd be interesting to say the least.
Wintermind
Vault Senior Citizen
Why would I want to do that?