What about rap musix and its relation to crime figures?
Firearms and their relation to crime figures
- Thread starter .Pixote.
- Start date
discussing semantics now or what ? It is trivial what I think about the definition. The question is what ever you think if some laws prevent certain people from comiting a crime because they fear the consequence. And while I dont know EVERY person on this planet I assume that SOME people simply dont go around stealing stuff, dealing with drugs or killing others is because they simply fear to get cought while others dont care about it or have the feeling that the benefit is it worth to take the risk. Afterall even if heartless bastards many drug dealers are inteligeng people for example.
Crni Vuk said:
Your assumptions are duly noted. Based on foundless emotions.
Since you won't define what a criminal is, I'll do the heavy lifting for you. Criminal: a person willing to break the law.
Now, it's your turn to apply logic, instead of emotion in your response to this question, I hope you can handle making a non-emotional response.
Q: If a person is already willing to break the law, how do more laws stop him from committing further crimes?
see. That is NOT what I am saying. I did not said more laws but some laws. I have no doubts about it and I agree with you that simply more of them will not always mean inherently better results or less crimes.
But if laws do NOT help to prevent SOME crime then they are somewhat useless no ? I thought that you would understand it because laws have as well the function just like guns to serve as deterrent so people with rational minds know that their actions may have bad consequences for them. For most people this is no problem because certain actions like stealing or even murder is no option. But there might be as well people which do not follow that idea and will do things the way how they see it fit depending on the situation. For a criminal your or mine oppinion about the definition doesnt matter. As said not all people think the same. Or do the same. So some probably thought about comiting crimes but never did it because they have fear to get in conflict with laws or geting caught. Is that so hard to understand ?
But if laws do NOT help to prevent SOME crime then they are somewhat useless no ? I thought that you would understand it because laws have as well the function just like guns to serve as deterrent so people with rational minds know that their actions may have bad consequences for them. For most people this is no problem because certain actions like stealing or even murder is no option. But there might be as well people which do not follow that idea and will do things the way how they see it fit depending on the situation. For a criminal your or mine oppinion about the definition doesnt matter. As said not all people think the same. Or do the same. So some probably thought about comiting crimes but never did it because they have fear to get in conflict with laws or geting caught. Is that so hard to understand ?
I know you like trolling DB, but at some point it just gets tiresome.DammitBoy said:
Try starting with a definition that doesn't assume everyone willing to break one law is willing to break all of them.
Sander said:
I'm not trolling but I appreciate your accusation.
Sander, I'll repeat the question so you can answer it. Let's make it a hypothetical, just for shits and giggles.
A person decides to murder somebody. I'm hoping we can agree murder is a criminal act? So this person has decided to break a law to commit the act of murder.
Now, what gun control law or any other law do you think might stop this person, considering they are already willing to break a more serious law?
Now try applying this to someone willing to commit a robbery. Will severe punishment for gun use dissuade someone from using a gun in a robbery? Will severe punishment for illegal possession of handguns dissuade criminals from using handguns for less serious crimes?DammitBoy said:
Sander said:
1) you didn't answer my question.
2) a robber knows the first thing they throw out in plea deals is the handgun charges - look it up, evidently our criminals know more about it than you do. They work the system and play the odds.
3) now, answer my question please.
Ding ding ding ding ding. Evidently this means that laws certainly do have an effect on criminals. And *stricter* laws (or rather, harsher punishments) would stop or at least dissuade people from using handguns in crimes.DammitBoy said:
I never argued that current punishments in the USA for gun violence were adequate, because I have no clue what those punishments are. So your saying "well this don't work now because the penalty is never applied" is hardly relevant to my argument.
I don't answer rhetorical questions.DammitBoy said:
welsh
Junkmaster
DammitBoy said:
And I think you're right to argue that those gun control advocates who say that guns alone cause a rise in crime are wrong, but your argument is essentially not about guns, but causation.
You argue, essentially, that a macro-social phenomena such as crime rate increases (a dependent variable) can't be reduced to a single causal (independent) variable.
Such social patterns involve multiple variables, and trying reduce the causation to one simple variable lacks sophistication.
Rephrased- guns are not, alone, a sufficient condition to explain crime increases. To argue otherwise is unsophisticated to social reality- naive.
But then you turn it around and say that guns actually led to a decrease in crime. In essence, you argue an unsophisticated single causal variable to explains the same macro-social variable.
This risks a similar unsophisticated argument.
You are judging the value of your argument against the unsophisticated position of your adversary and tender an equally unsophisticated argument when it suits your purpose.
In essence, you are choosing your methods (your epistemology) based on your beliefs (your ontology) leading you to an equally unsophisticated argument that makes you vulnerable to the same illogical assumptions you challenge.
You like the argument when it works, but deny it to others when it doesn't work for you.
That's bad form and means you are essentially arguing against yourself, subject to the charge of being simplistic and naive.
You can use evidence that points out that in some countries with high levels of gun ownership, there is little crime. But the reasons may have more to do with a broader social welfare system than we have in the US. Switzerland and Canada for instance.
The Map I suggested above illustrates that in some states with easy gun laws, you have high homicide rates while in other states that have strong gun control laws, you have less homicide rates.
Is it because of gun control? Perhaps, but maybe its also because gun control laws mix with other explanations (education, college education, family, levels of urbanization, population density.... lots of potential variables).
So guns might be part of the equation, and in some contexts, guns might be key in the causal explanation. In other cases, other variables may actually matter more to mitigate guns in a society. Are Switzerland and Canada safer because of guns or because of other aspects of their society, and might those other aspects mitigate the costs of guns.
We are also stuck with a grim statistic- that guns are one of the top ten killers of Americans. You might not like that statistic, but that doesn't make the stat false or worth explaining.
I think we can accept that guns make violence more lethal. Why we have more violence may be due to a mixture of variables, with gun ownership being only one).
My problem with all of this has more to do with guns being one of the top ten killers and not gun ownership. Find a way that you can over come gun deaths and allow gun ownership, and I am fine with it.
But that's a question of the politics. I think the problem with guns rights folks, is that its fundamentally defensive and cultural- don't take my guns away + its part of our culture.
Fine, but lets figure a way to reduce those homicide rates.
In short, for gun control advocates, its less about your right to own a gun, than my right to live without the fear of being a victim of gun violence.
Little overstated. Drug dealers rarely use automatic weapons because they don't want the added penalties when they get caught.
Some people don't commit crimes because social norms have a weight on their decision making. Some act simply because they don't want the punishment of prison. Deterrence through fear. Whether its religious- hell for murders, or 20 years in maximum prison).
So while you might be right that punishment won't deter or stop every criminal, its also fair to say that deterrence through punishment will stop many or at least force some reconsideration.
This is also one reason why we distinguish murder (an intentional, malicious or reckless indifference) crime from other homicides (where the husband catches his wife screwing his best friend and shoots them in the moment of passion without much time to think about it).
That's a really realy really long post you built around a strawman with lots of $20 words.
I did not claim more guns equals less crime. I claimed the fact that more guns were inserted into the population and violent crime dropped which disproved the idiotic claim that more guns equals more crime/violence.
You really need to work on a little brevity in your lecture/posts. It doesn't make you look smart, like you think it does. It just bores people to tears. You remind me of a certain kind of college professor too impressed with themselves by far.
I did not claim more guns equals less crime. I claimed the fact that more guns were inserted into the population and violent crime dropped which disproved the idiotic claim that more guns equals more crime/violence.
You really need to work on a little brevity in your lecture/posts. It doesn't make you look smart, like you think it does. It just bores people to tears. You remind me of a certain kind of college professor too impressed with themselves by far.
I dont know. But I think welsh makes a few very fine points. You know one can love guns and still be critical about them.
Look it that way.
You love your nation ? Yes ? I think you do. But that doesn't mean you have to buy every shit that is thrown at you by your government (and it is quite clear that YOU don't). The same applies to gun-fanatics (for the lack of other words). There is a whole industry behind it and it is a quite profitable business. So it is just natural that one will see a lot of propaganda thrown around on each side of the spectrum
You love your nation ? Yes ? I think you do. But that doesn't mean you have to buy every shit that is thrown at you by your government (and it is quite clear that YOU don't). The same applies to gun-fanatics (for the lack of other words). There is a whole industry behind it and it is a quite profitable business. So it is just natural that one will see a lot of propaganda thrown around on each side of the spectrum
Crni Vuk said:
So you think it's "propaganda" that a gun is an inanimate object?
Example of actual real propaganda:
The "Assault Weapons Ban" that the gun control crowd loves so much. Take a group of firearms, no different than most other firearms, call them evil, insist they cause crime when they don't, and assign them a malignant character. Play into ignorant peoples fears so that you can write laws that limit or ban their sale, while ignoring guns that use the exact same mechanism, but look more sporty because they use wood instead of black plastic. Use the public's ignorance because they don't know these guns are semi-automatic - even though they 'look' like their select-fire military cousins.
So we ended up with bans and laws on types of weapon for their appearence that were not being used in crimes in the first place. It made honest law abiding citizens into criminals for having a pistol grip on a gun or a bayonet lug on the end of a barrel.
Stupid laws that made no sense and didn't stop a single crime or criminal act. Even the use of the term 'Assault Weapon' was wrong. Assault is a behavior not a weapon.
It's all complete fabrication (propaganda) and a false argument. The idea that banning weapons makes you safe from evil minded people is the real false argument.
welsh
Junkmaster
Ok Dammitboy- I agree that the guns = crime argument is a weak one if guns stand alone.
But lets think about this a bit more-
You've got Four arguments-
1. Guns cause more homicide
2. Guns cause less homicide
3. Guns are irrelevant
4. Guns matter, but there is something else at play too.
Lets get rid of all the other context variables (no social- economic variables). Lets just say the only variables are guns and human nature (so option 4 is out).
What isi the answer- more homicide, less homicide, don't matter?
What we can probably agree on- Guns make violence more lethal- so the "don't matter" argument is out. If you are going to fight, and someone has a gun, there's a better chance than not that someone is getting put in the ground.
Ok, so does that lead to more homicide or less?
The less homicide argument seems to be based on either -
(1) people are generally good and we can trust them.
or
(2) even if people are not so good and might be compelled to use guns, than widespread gun ownership would mean that violent actors are deterred by the possibility that they might end up in the ground.
Ok, but that assumes that people are rational. I doubt it.
Counter position- even if we get a few nuts, the sane ones who are armed will put them in the ground. The net effect is overall less homicide?
The price of this private capacity to deliver violence is also increased insecurity among even gun owners. Sure they pack a gun and should be able to protect themselves but the problem with guns is that the person who shoots first in a disagreement might win.
So they find themselves in an argument with someone that turns violent, and even if they don't want to shoot first, they also know the other person might. Uncertainty figures into the rational thinker.
This creates a security dilemma for the individual. Do you trust the other person not to shoot first, or do you shoot first before they shoot you?
Added wrinkle- the other person is thinking the same thing. And the other person doesn't want to shoot, but is uncertain what you will do.
Of course if people are both rational they should figure out a way to cooperate and escape gun fire, but the nature of the interaction leads both to think that it might be better to shoot first and survive. Rationality doesn't matter anymore. Rather, its the capacity of the other to deliver lethal violence that drives one's choice in the interaction.
This would support the notion that guns actually lead to more homicides, even among rational actors who should know better.
Is it the guns alone? No. But its how guns change the nature of human social dynamics.
What about if persons had no guns? Well in that case the fight might lead to homicide, but its harder to beat a person to death than to shoot a person to death.
Can individuals negotiate out of this so that persons can have guns but decide not to use them against each other?
Lets assume that two gangs meet and decide that they are going to fight, but that neither side will bring guns. The fight might be intense, but it will be a fist fight among gang members. Or at least that's what each wants since they don't want unnecessary bloodshed for what might just be a show of force.
The problem, neither side knows if the other side will breach the agreement. Neither side trusts the other not to bring a gun. If the other side brings guns, then they are at a significant disadvantage. Its possible that the breaching gang will suffer from other gangs that won't be willing to trust them again, but for the gangs going into the fight, it doesn't matter what happens after they lose, only losing. Given that, both sides are likely to bring a gun to the fight.
Thus rational parties can't even negotiate a compact to not use their guns.
Its for that reason that the building of prosperous communities involved, to some extent, the domestication of violence and the monopolization of that violence by some public entity. That often coincided with the disarming of private individuals.
I am not against your right to have a gun, but I think its healthy that there are severe consequences if that gun is missused. I would also like to see controls that keep guns out of the hands of those parts of society most likely to use them for either irrational or criminal reasons. Trying to make guns "safe" for the general public is the problem that needs to be addressed.
But lets think about this a bit more-
You've got Four arguments-
1. Guns cause more homicide
2. Guns cause less homicide
3. Guns are irrelevant
4. Guns matter, but there is something else at play too.
Lets get rid of all the other context variables (no social- economic variables). Lets just say the only variables are guns and human nature (so option 4 is out).
What isi the answer- more homicide, less homicide, don't matter?
What we can probably agree on- Guns make violence more lethal- so the "don't matter" argument is out. If you are going to fight, and someone has a gun, there's a better chance than not that someone is getting put in the ground.
Ok, so does that lead to more homicide or less?
The less homicide argument seems to be based on either -
(1) people are generally good and we can trust them.
or
(2) even if people are not so good and might be compelled to use guns, than widespread gun ownership would mean that violent actors are deterred by the possibility that they might end up in the ground.
Ok, but that assumes that people are rational. I doubt it.
Counter position- even if we get a few nuts, the sane ones who are armed will put them in the ground. The net effect is overall less homicide?
The price of this private capacity to deliver violence is also increased insecurity among even gun owners. Sure they pack a gun and should be able to protect themselves but the problem with guns is that the person who shoots first in a disagreement might win.
So they find themselves in an argument with someone that turns violent, and even if they don't want to shoot first, they also know the other person might. Uncertainty figures into the rational thinker.
This creates a security dilemma for the individual. Do you trust the other person not to shoot first, or do you shoot first before they shoot you?
Added wrinkle- the other person is thinking the same thing. And the other person doesn't want to shoot, but is uncertain what you will do.
Of course if people are both rational they should figure out a way to cooperate and escape gun fire, but the nature of the interaction leads both to think that it might be better to shoot first and survive. Rationality doesn't matter anymore. Rather, its the capacity of the other to deliver lethal violence that drives one's choice in the interaction.
This would support the notion that guns actually lead to more homicides, even among rational actors who should know better.
Is it the guns alone? No. But its how guns change the nature of human social dynamics.
What about if persons had no guns? Well in that case the fight might lead to homicide, but its harder to beat a person to death than to shoot a person to death.
Can individuals negotiate out of this so that persons can have guns but decide not to use them against each other?
Lets assume that two gangs meet and decide that they are going to fight, but that neither side will bring guns. The fight might be intense, but it will be a fist fight among gang members. Or at least that's what each wants since they don't want unnecessary bloodshed for what might just be a show of force.
The problem, neither side knows if the other side will breach the agreement. Neither side trusts the other not to bring a gun. If the other side brings guns, then they are at a significant disadvantage. Its possible that the breaching gang will suffer from other gangs that won't be willing to trust them again, but for the gangs going into the fight, it doesn't matter what happens after they lose, only losing. Given that, both sides are likely to bring a gun to the fight.
Thus rational parties can't even negotiate a compact to not use their guns.
Its for that reason that the building of prosperous communities involved, to some extent, the domestication of violence and the monopolization of that violence by some public entity. That often coincided with the disarming of private individuals.
I am not against your right to have a gun, but I think its healthy that there are severe consequences if that gun is missused. I would also like to see controls that keep guns out of the hands of those parts of society most likely to use them for either irrational or criminal reasons. Trying to make guns "safe" for the general public is the problem that needs to be addressed.
Actually I don't even know why you bring up that since I don't see how it is relevant. Drugs are inanimate objects as well same for money. Yet no one will dispute that they can be one (of many) sources of crimes. Just because something is an "object" doesn't mean it cant be the the source of something. Or at least be part of it. And I think part of welshs point is that you many times simplify a topic/issue till the point it suits your argumentation. What ever if that actually helps the case or not seems irelevant to you and is detrimental to the original point.DammitBoy said:
The point I wanted to make was more that one simply should pay attention and that you can love your guns and still be critical about for example the industry which stands behind guns.
No clue what kind of obsession you have with your naive trolling all the time ...
You love to repeat your self ? Didnt I agreed already with you a few pages ago that not ALL KIND of laws are good ? Or that simply MORE LAWS will not lead to inherently better systems ?DammitBoy said:
Sheeesh. Again. What is so hard to understand with this that some people simply might fear the consqeunces of crimes and hence SOME laws are helping to protect citizens. I didnt even mentioned any restrictions with guns here.
Sorry Welsh I'm going to go with too long didn't read.
My basis for this is not trolling as you will surely claim. My basis is in the theory that the longer and more drawn out you have to make your argument in order to support your point, the more likely it is bullshit.
If you can't make short succinct posts that don't meander around the globe before you get to some kind of point, don't expect to keep my engaged. I'm old for chrissakes dude, I'd rather be able to finish reading a post before I drop dead of boredom.
---
ps - Sorry Crni, I didn't have the energy to even look at your crap, I blame Welsh.
My basis for this is not trolling as you will surely claim. My basis is in the theory that the longer and more drawn out you have to make your argument in order to support your point, the more likely it is bullshit.
If you can't make short succinct posts that don't meander around the globe before you get to some kind of point, don't expect to keep my engaged. I'm old for chrissakes dude, I'd rather be able to finish reading a post before I drop dead of boredom.
---
ps - Sorry Crni, I didn't have the energy to even look at your crap, I blame Welsh.