Gun Control thread

You got farther with than I did. Although I did find on one of their pages a nice little disclaimer where they pretty much say "all the countries lie because reporting their actual crime rates would make their governments look bad and hurts tourism"

 

I know this is off topic but it goes into the catagory of really fucked up things. A nurses aid in Fort Worth Texas hit a homeless man. So his head and torso go through the window, his legs are broken but he has no internal injuries. The woman drives home and parks in her garage. Meanwhile the guy is pleading for her to call for help. She doesn't and over the course of the next two or three days he bleeds to death.

 

That's sad. She is really cruel.

 

I feel some righteous anger building up...Where does this fucker live? I want to hurt them, at some point in time.

 

Another good one. A lady in the one of the mountain states tosses her baby off of a cliff. She then goes to the police and says that her baby was kidnapped. Meanwhile some hikers find the baby in a large mass of thorny bushes. Thankfully the reason they find the baby is because it is crying. The bushes broke its fall. I wonder if she will claim that she was suffering from post-partum(sp?)?

As for your other post ThreeDogs, the link didn't work for me. I really don't feel like debating the Constitution right now anyway. As far as the magazines that you mentioned they tend to swing towards public opinion. During the Clinton years they were pretty left. Now that Bush has the favor of the American people they swing toward the right. It called market survival. If they print too many things that piss too many people off, people will not buy their mags. As for television, they get their money from advertising so they can say anything they want. Same with radio.
BTW, did you happen to hear or see any of the comments about FOXNEWS. The other networks were torqued because they are taking a "right" stance on the war on terrorism. If I can find it again I will post it. As far as the networks being too liberal, I don't know, but when the networks won't let the anchors wear the little flag pins because "We don't want to offend anybody. We have to stay neutral in this matter" kind of speaks for itself.

 

GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE DO!

Before guns, people killed each other with swords and knives, sticks and stones, etc.

Today guns, tomorrow phasers, whatever. Who cares.
You outlaw one thing, they'll just go to another.
Plus, it's already against the law to kill someone so what weapon they use really doesn't matter, in that it's illegal anyways (to kill someone).
Banning guns will not deter crime.
Homocide is banned, but people still kill each other.

DO GUNS contribute to higher crime rates?
I think they do, but only slightly. Usually, in the minds of "homie"-gang-banger wanna-bes who watch MTV and see their thug heroes all acting like they are packing something and are "cool" for doing so.

What they need to do, is basically increase policing, community policing, establish more anonymous-tip hotlines specific perhaps to when someone flashes a gun at you or something. Also, I'm all for starting a gun-toting/concealed weapon-civilian self-policing group, so next time some restaurant or shop gets held up, there's a better chance that a civilian or two with a concealed will be there, and will have the authority to engage the armed bandits/or, if you are a civilian with this particular special license, and someone merely flashes you, you are sanctioned to engage them.

Usually, the police know where such crimes are more common at, what they need to do is really go in gung-ho-Israeli-style and clear out all the criminals.
They need to have a show of force. Like, maybe march into there in full riot-gear and secure a number of blocks for a couple weeks. Maybe set up guard/survelliance towers.
I mean, f*ck it, what's there to lose?
If the criminals don't see the cops or security around, they are going to go for it.
They need to quadruple the police, create a sort of para-military police force (use all the National Guard sitting on their asses) and send them in.
It worked during the LA Riots, it will work now.
Start flying Blackhawks around the area and drive around in Humvees, them punks will get the picture.
I dunno, with all the war/terrorist sh*t going on right now, I wouldn't be surprised if it comes to that anyways.

 

And now we have heard from the Great Bortiis.

 

I swear you've stolen my licensed-vigilante idea there...of course, people called me a fascist and freak when I spoke about it...

Let's see, um, how about all the civil libertarian groups in the US starting their own riots protesting what the government are doing, impeding on their civil rights, etc etc etc.

If I remember correctly, the LA riots was one whole state full of shit hitting the fan, so you can't really talk about success there can you?

 

Exactly, Bortiis! What we need is to live in a country where you're so afraid of the police, you don't care what the criminals get up to. Have you been feeding the gerbil again?

You're right about outlawing stuff not working too. I mean, they outlawed slavery and people still do th- no, hang on, that's not a good example. You're off your head. Of course making something a crime, and punishing people for doing it, reduces how much it happens. You just don't have the vision to see what the world would be like if homicide wasn't a crime. The system isn't perfect, but then the world is a complex place.

DISCLAIMER: please ignore the above text. I don't like Bortiis, and probably haven't treated his views fairly.

_________________


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Sheriff Fatman on 2002-03-08 06:33 ]</font>

 

Very true, but the problem is in the punishing. You hear a lot about the crime, but very little about the punishment. Also, thanks to lawyers, it has become very easy to lower the punishment for most crimes.
"Yes, yo honor, I promise I won't do it again."

 

I think deterrants have limited actual affect. Some people are just reckless, and - even if desperate not to go to prison - will still commit crime.

I know at least one person (not exactly a friend, but someone I know well) who this was true for. He was a repeat offender, mainly for Grevious Bodily Harm crimes (assault with no theft type of thing). He hated prison, but ended up back there without fail within a year of being released.

Also, another person I know - an actual friend - killed two people while drunk driving. He went to a low security prison for few years, and says he kinda enjoyed it. He said it was a bit like a youth club. I think that shows how sometimes the threat of prison can lose what effect it does have if the offender decides "It's not all that bad."

Personally, I think a more certain way to reduce crime is to make the crime harder to actually undertake. Security devices are a good example of this, so that the effort of attempting a robbery is not worthwhile to the criminal.

I think it is the same with guns. By making them harder to acquire, you reduce the likelihood of crime. I do believe this has knock on effect of reducing violent crime. Attacking someone is more difficult without a weapon (or with a less effective weapon). People don't get so brave when they haven't a gun in their hands.

Clearly, this is just supposition from me, based upon my experience/perception of human nature.

 

Geez Vlad if you thought that Time et. al. were liberal during the Clinton Years then you must be further to the right than I thought. Also please explaim how lawyers have on their own lowered the punishment for most crimes

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ThreeDogs on 2002-03-08 09:42 ]</font>

 

Well, if they're anything like our lawyers (and accountants) they did it by asking an old school chum to get them into politics, then conning some apathetic/gullible voters into getting them into Parliament. From there on it's just a question of out blustering the other politicians, to get their pet bills pushed through.

[EDIT]Post 1000. Yay for me. Technically I now get a custom avatar, but I might bask in the shine of my cool clockwork medic for a while ...

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Sheriff Fatman on 2002-03-08 10:10 ]</font>

 

I thought Vlad was reffering to practising lawyers and everyone who has gone to law school. hey congrats to getting the metal bug thing

 

Yay to Sheriff!!! 1000!

I to believe that security measure do help in reducing crime. I also believe that actually enforcing the law and giving out stiff punishments help as well. I will use Project Exile as an example. There is already a federal law that states if you are convicted of 3 crimes involving firearms you go to jail for the rest of your life, no parole. It just isn't being enforced. Judges (who used to be lawyers) and prosectuing attorneys (also lawyers) are allowing the defendants to plea down to lesser charges in return for a high conviction rate (read re-election). In steps Project Exile. It is a joint effort between the NRA and the city of Richmond, VA. They are craking down on repeat firearms offenders. The result? Firearms crimes are at a record low. Also, violent crime in general is down. It is harder to rob someone (1) if you don't know if they are armed or not (VA has a shall-issue concealed carry law) and (2) you are not armed because if you are caught you don't want to spend the rest of your life in jail. I realize that there will still be people out there that will commit crimes with firearms, but I truly believe that the only way to prevent that is to destroy all firearms. Since that isn't a feasible alternative, we search for another. Is there a right answer? Who knows. I firmly believe that there will always be a difference in opinions on this subject.

ThreeDogs, what ever gave you the impression that I wasn't a conservative? I do believe that those magazines were easy on the former President. The man was an adultering criminal, he lied under oath, and he allowed his cabninet members to rob the taxpayers blind. And when there were impeachment hearings they made statements to the effect that it was just the Republicans looking for a way to get rid of him. The media in general were always looking for something else to report on than the President.

 

:nod:

And that's all I'm gonna say on this subject. I understand why my father always said, "Never talk about religion or politics with anyone you don't wanna get sideways of."

Not that anyone has gotten sideways of me or anyone has flamed me or anything else... Feldon I didn't see any harm in your response to me, but I am just saying that I'm gonna step out and be a spectator.

I consider myself an avid conservative, but it is clear, I don't know enough about politics to debate anything at all, so I'm just gonna watch you guys.

*watches from outside the window*



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: retard on 2002-03-08 10:53 ]</font>

 

Vlad, I can see what you mean about the political manouvring. Our prison sentences here are kept low through equally spurious means so that money won't have to be sent on prison space, and can be spent on vote-winning issues instead.

I disagree with your take on the mugging thing. Both of your points are about deterrants.

1) Knowing someone else is allowed to carry a gun may deter an assailant. However, even as a deterrent I would say it is unlikely. Pulling a gun on someone and saying "give me all your cash" seems about the best guarantee of a mugging going your way, regardless of what the victim may or may not have in his/her pockets.
2) Risk of greater punishment may deter someone from carrying a gun. Like I said in my previous post, I think such deterrents have limited effectiveness.

I think that having a gun makes mugging/robbery easier, and therefore more likely. If I were going to attempt a robbery, I would feel more confident if I took a gun. I'd also be working under the "let's not get caught" idea, rather than the "let's try to minimize the effects of our probable failure.

NOTE: I'd be wrong. If I attempted a crime, it would go horribly wrong and Id probably end up shooting myself, then going to prison.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Sheriff Fatman on 2002-03-08 10:59 ]</font>

 

Actually one of the main reason for plea bargining is hardly political manuvering. It is a matter of time. The republicans war on drugs, a brilliant sucess, has put a lot of small time dealers in the system. Since republicans also don't want to raise taxes to pay more judges and build more couthouses there is simply a time crunch on the DA's remember one is entitled to a speedy trial. Also Vlad I am not sure what you are talking about with project exile and federal law. State judges SOME of whom are elected do not enforce federal laws that would be the jurisdiction of federal judges who are not elected but rather appointed for life. Sorry but it is a real streach to say that reduced sentences are the result of attempted vote gathering. Also remember this people don't serve thier entire sentences in jail and this is not a bad thing. If you keep a guy locked up for ten years and then dump him on the street with no continued supervision what do you think is going to happen? you let them out of jail before the entire sentence so that you can still compell them to report to a parole officer or stay at a half-way house.

Retard- "get sideways of somebody" I like it. my favorite is "He's sitting in tall cotton."

 

While I will agree that time does have something to do with it, DA's get elected based on convictions, not on how many trials they procede over.

The way I see it, the republicans are doing a pretty good job with the country's finances without having to raise taxes. Or didn't you hear about the budget surplus? The problem is the defense lawyers who drag out a case for years defending a guilty party in hopes of getting a deal or finding a technicality to get their client off with.

Look it up.

They are not appointed on their good looks. They are chosen based on their records as DA's and judges in civil and criminal courts, where they are elected.

Not really, they gather votes in the attempt to hang around long enough to get appointed for life, as you pointed out. Where they are allowed to do more damage.

If you re-read my post, the point is that after the 3rd offense, there is no parole. You go to jail until you die of second-hand smoke. As far as compelling them to report to a PO or half-way house, we see how well that works.