Gun Control, who needs it?

[MrPresident]

If people actually had to suffer the way they made their victims suffer, and this were guaranteed, I can almost guarantee violent crime would not exist

Are you living in a dream world? Most people who commit violent crime do not plan them in ahead, they are spur of the moment. Do you think that someone would think that because they would only get live imprisonment instead of the death penalty committing a violent crime is worth it? of couse not, people who commit violent either do not think they will be caught or do not think about the consequences. You could think up the most horrific, gruesome, painful punishment ever but wouldn't matter people would still commit crime.

Now this is not an attack on all of what you said because the points about gangs were very good and made me think. However in the point about drugs you failed to mention the downside of the argument. Sure a lot of inner city poor people get addicted to drugs and then have to fund their habit usually through crime because of the high cost. However rich people are just as likely to become addicted to drugs, just difference ones. Usually it is cocaine instead of heroin and probably a higher quality but it is just as addictive. Now these people may not commit the same sort of crimes as poor drug addicts but they may commit crimes such as fraud, grand thief, etc. Which I think we can all agree is also unacceptable to soceity. Current US drugs are racist because certain drugs with the same addictive quality carry different sentences. Unsurprisly the drug which is used mostly by Blacks had a higher sentence than the one used mostly by Whites. The point about police inconsistently is also very valid. I think this is partly due to the higher tax revenues generated by richer people leading to a higher quality service.

As for the point about people owning a gun but do no wrong should not be punished well it is the potential for crime that I find worrying. If someone has access to a gun they are a lot more likely to shoot someone than a person without access to a gun. I know this agrument is hard for gun supporters to accept but it is a important one with regards to gun control. Also on the logic of your argument there could be no such crime as attempted murder because the person has not done anything wrong they have just tried and failed to do so. I know that punishing people for the actions of other is very hard for people to accept but when the safetly of society as a whole is undermined then something has to be done. Let me ask a question the supporters of guns (you know what I mean), if you were mugged would you rather the mugger has a gun and you have nothing? you have a gun and the mugger has nothing? or no-one has a gun?

 

[allan]

I said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If people actually had to suffer the way they made their victims suffer, and this were guaranteed, I can almost guarantee violent crime would not exist
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Are you living in a dream world? Most people who commit violent crime do not plan them in ahead, they are spur of the moment. Do you think that someone would think that because they would only get live imprisonment instead of the death penalty committing a violent crime is worth it? of couse not, people who commit violent either do not think they will be caught or do not think about the consequences. You could think up the most horrific, gruesome, painful punishment ever but wouldn't matter people would still commit crime."

Read what I said--I put in the clause "AND THIS WERE GUARANTEED". If it happened EVERY time someone committed a crime, there would be no optimism about not getting caught or whatever. I also said in that same paragraph (which you trimmed up a bit), that this was an IDEAL and would never really happen. But we can, at the very least, punish those we DO catch a bit more seriously. Like I said, hardened criminals often JOKE about how easy they do time. Should they be joking? Or should they be afraid, VERY afraid, if they raise their hand or knife or gun to another human being?

"Now this is not an attack on all of what you said because the points about gangs were very good and made me think. However in the point about drugs you failed to mention the downside of the argument. Sure a lot of inner city poor people get addicted to drugs and then have to fund their habit usually through crime because of the high cost. However rich people are just as likely to become addicted to drugs, just difference ones. Usually it is cocaine instead of heroin and probably a higher quality but it is just as addictive. Now these people may not commit the same sort of crimes as poor drug addicts but they may commit crimes such as fraud, grand thief, etc. Which I think we can all agree is also unacceptable to soceity."

I definitely agree. I think I pointed that out in another post too. And it illustrates that crime ISN'T a poverty thing, but a MORAL thing. And I also have stated before that "white collar" criminals should get the same harsh conditions as other robbers, defrauders, or thieves do--and the time should be proportional to HOW MUCH they stole or defrauded, too--which means in many cases MORE TIME than average!

"Current US drugs are racist because certain drugs with the same addictive quality carry different sentences. Unsurprisly the drug which is used mostly by Blacks had a higher sentence than the one used mostly by Whites. The point about police inconsistently is also very valid. I think this is partly due to the higher tax revenues generated by richer people leading to a higher quality service."

It wouldn't surprise me if racial motives are/were behind these discrepancies. I.e. powder coke getting less time than crack, etc. The War on Drugs REEKS of government corruption, and at any rate needs to be ended NOW. Doing bad things unto yourself is NOT a crime--maybe not advisable, but NOT a crime.

"As for the point about people owning a gun but do no wrong should not be punished well it is the potential for crime that I find worrying. If someone has access to a gun they are a lot more likely to shoot someone than a person without access to a gun."

If Joe Sixpack has owned a gun for 50 years and has NEVER committed a crime with it, then those odds, you'd have to concede, have proven to be zero so far, and likely pretty damned CLOSE to zero in the foreseeable future. I.e. similar to the odds of him committing a crime with his car, his hunting knife, his steak knives, or his gas can and lighter, provided of course he has demonstrated non-criminality with those items as well.

You cannot call POTENTIAL to commit a crime, crime. And yet that is what laws against guns do.

"I know this agrument is hard for gun supporters to accept but it is a important one with regards to gun control. Also on the logic of your argument there could be no such crime as attempted murder because the person has not done anything wrong they have just tried and failed to do so."

Joe owning a gun and never TRYING to fire it at anybody is NOT the same as attempted murder, and you know it. Please don't make me have to actually argue this--it would be absurd.

"I know that punishing people for the actions of other is very hard for people to accept but when the safetly of society as a whole is undermined then something has to be done."

Yes, and that is punish people who DO actually commit crimes more severely, and more consistently. That is the only fair way. Leave people who haven't done anything wrong alone.

"Let me ask a question the supporters of guns (you know what I mean), if you were mugged would you rather the mugger has a gun and you have nothing?"

Certainly not.

"you have a gun and the mugger has nothing?"

Well, I could persuade him to leave me alone that way, so yes.

"or no-one has a gun?"

If I could overpower him or run faster than him, then yes, that would be fine. But if I'm elderly or in a wheelchair or a big wussy who can't fight or run very fast, then I could say I may feel quite vulnerable under those circumstances.

Another situation: What if you were a beautiful but frail woman who was being stalked by a psycho former lover or an infatuee?

 

[MrPresident]

Another situation: What if you were a beautiful but frail woman who was being stalked by a psycho former lover or an infatuee?

Well I certainly wouldn't want him to have a gun but under your logic he is surely entitled to one until he commits a crime with it. A gun has only one potential, to kill, that is it, nothing more. If say a gun had more uses than to kill than maybe I would be more open to people having it but it does, it only has one purpose, inflicting pain on others.

If I could overpower him or run faster than him, then yes, that would be fine. But if I'm elderly or in a wheelchair or a big wussy who can't fight or run very fast, then I could say I may feel quite vulnerable under those circumstances.

Yes but if you both had guns one of you may be better at using it, have a more powerful gun, be able to fire more shots, have more ammo. Do you see the connection between what I just wrote and what you wrote in the quote?

 

[allan]

"Well I certainly wouldn't want him to have a gun but under your logic he is purely entitled to one until he commits a gun with it."

Wasn't entirely the point. They stalker may likely not be using one. He is male, likely stronger than the female, and it is the FEMALE who may feel a need for one to "level the playing field" so to speak.

But yes, if he has a gun it is (and should be) legal until he commits a crime with it. And THREATENING to use a gun to gain something (be it money or sex or whatever) IS a crime.

"A gun has only one potential to kill, that is it, nothing more. If say a gun had more uses than to kill than maybe I would be more open to people having it but it does, it only has one purpose, inflicting pain on others."

In today's world especially (but actually, always since their invention), guns also have the use of deterrence of force against you. Why exactly do you think Joe Sixpack, who lives in the city and doesn't hunt, felt like shelling $400 or more on a gun? Especially when he's never inflicted pain on anyone with it? Could it be that OTHER use of the gun? Or does he just like to throw his money away?

"quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If I could overpower him or run faster than him, then yes, that would be fine. But if I'm elderly or in a wheelchair or a big wussy who can't fight or run very fast, then I could say I may feel quite vulnerable under those circumstances.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Yes but if you both had guns one of you may be better at using it, have a more powerful gun, be able to fire more shots, have more ammo. Do you see the connection between what I just wrote and what you wrote in the quote?"

Certainly do. Two things though: If I were a mugger with a gun, I'd still try to avoid people I thought were armed. Plenty of people without one, and less risk. Of course, with concealed weapons I wouldn't know exactly, but if I lived in a city where concealed weapons were common, I'd think seriously about another line of work. Actually I wouldn't mind people carrying weapons holstered openly--signalling "don't try to threaten me". Definitely safer if it prevents any confrontation to begin with. I know I'll probably get flamed for "old ways of thinking" or whatever (I've been flamed worse), but think about it a minute....

Second thing though, and this is far more important from a philosophic standpoint, is that even if a person FAILS to defend themselves, they DO have a fundamental right to TRY to defend themselves. If anything, the knowledge that they can TRY with better odds than near nothing will make people FEEL more secure, especially if they have much to worry about. I personally don't feel I have much to worry about, but that may change. And that doesn't mean that others do not have some legitimate worries. Again, if these people do no crime, than what's to worry about from them?

 

[Hurricane]

allan: Your logic about people not committing crime if you make the punishment extreme, is ridiculous, and you know it. We have to go back all the way to Hammurabi to find a society which used the "eye for eye, tooth for tooth"-principle. Mankind has developed during the last few thousand years since that. By the way, do you think China is the good example of how crime should be fought?

Show me one study which proves that harded sentences makes people less probable to commit crime.

If I could overpower him or run faster than him, then yes, that would be fine. But if I'm elderly or in a wheelchair or a big wussy who can't fight or run very fast, then I could say I may feel quite vulnerable under those circumstances.

Just think about the situation for a moment. Do you really think that the elderly would be fast enough to pick up the gun from the pocket/bag, load it, unsafe it and point it against the mugger before he has had plenty of time to stab you or just pick the gun from your weak hand.

And if you actually for some reason were lucky enough to use the gun, do you think it is acceptable to risk to kill someone that mugs you? Isn´t a life worth more than a few dollars?

 

[allan]

And as for worry about being a victim, if we had harsher punishments and better, more consistent law enforcement of violent crimes, I'd say crime will go down significantly and thus less people would worry about being victims enough to shell out $400 or more for a gun, and thus there'd be less guns in circulation in the long run. Wouldn't that be great? Talk about killing two birds with one stone!

 

[MrPresident]

But yes, if he has a gun it is (and should be) legal until he commits a crime with it. And THREATENING to use a gun to gain something (be it money or sex or whatever) IS a crime.

But the point is that the person is not going to stop at threatening they are going to carry it out. By the time the police have been noticed the person will have already gained money/sex. So a person can carry a legally bought gun determined to do harm with it and until they have done that harm they have done nothing illegal.

Why exactly do you think Joe Sixpack, who lives in the city and doesn't hunt, felt like shelling $400 or more on a gun?

So that if threatened (gun or not) he can do harm to the individual. Whats the point in getting a gun if you have no intention to use it. If someone trys to mug you and you pull out a gun but they do not stop. You will shoot them, therefore a person with no intention of using a gun and only bought one for protection can easily kill a person. That is way guns should be banned.

Carrying a gun may make someone feel more secure but it is not the answer. Killing every single criminal would also make people feel secure. Why don't we lock up everyone and can't prove their innocence. The people on the outside will surely feel a lot more secure and safe. A gun may make you feel more secure about what could happen but so would my suggestions, why are some acceptable and others not? Wouldn't no-one carrying a gun make everyone feel even safer? I walk down the street in my country and I never, not once, think that someone may attack me at gunpoint, and that makes me feel safe. Can you say the same thing?

 

[allan]

"allan: Your logic about people not committing crime if you make the punishment extreme, is ridiculous, and you know it. We have to go back all the way to Hammurabi to find a society which used the "eye for eye, tooth for tooth"-principle. Mankind has developed during the last few thousand years since that. By the way, do you think China is the good example of how crime should be fought?"

Of course you automatically assume, without the common courtesy of an argument, that the "development" of mankind must be positive in this case. Not good enough.

And as for China--although I disagree with some things they do in that their legal system, for one, is not as thorough with the rules of evidence as it should be--violent crime in China is certainly WAY lower than it is in the US, no?

"Show me one study which proves that harded sentences makes people less probable to commit crime."

I don't have to point to a "study" or whatever--just observe things in MANY parts of the world, which I have. In that violent crime is often lower in those "third-world" nations than it is in the US or even in many other western nations.

And it just stands to reason: if you think you have a chance of spending a good part of your life in a living hell, you'll be less likely to do things that could lead you there than if you are threatened with merely doing "easy" time if you get caught, and the chance of getting caught is lower too. Not just harsher punishment, but BETTER and more consistent enforcement is what I've proposed. It may not catch on to all criminals initially, but in the long term, as stories of these places started circulating, it would.

"quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If I could overpower him or run faster than him, then yes, that would be fine. But if I'm elderly or in a wheelchair or a big wussy who can't fight or run very fast, then I could say I may feel quite vulnerable under those circumstances.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Just think about the situation for a moment. Do you really think that the elderly would be fast enough to pick up the gun from the pocket/bag, load it, unsafe it and point it against the mugger before he has had plenty of time to stab you or just pick the gun from your weak hand."

Obviously depends on the degree of your debilitation. What if you're Joe Average, not exactly a "big wussy" but not exactly a skillful streetfighter either? I'd say most people probably fall into that category, where a gun COULD make a difference.

Again, a person always has a right to TRY to defend himself. Obviously his odds decrease with certain physical factors even with a gun, but they're still better than without.

"And if you actually for some reason were lucky enough to use the gun, do you think it is acceptable to risk to kill someone that mugs you? Isn´t a life worth more than a few dollars?"

Hopefully you won't have to fire it, just pointing the thing will deter him. But how does a person know that a person making predatory, threatening moves on his person won't kill him anyway, AFTER the robbery? That too happens in a small but disturbing number of cases.

Have you ever been mugged, Hurricane? *I* have. When I drove a taxi in Baltimore. I didn't have much money on me, and I feared that he would kill me BECAUSE of this. Cab drivers have been murdered in Baltimore under the same circumstances. Besides this extreme fear, I felt VERY violated. You'd have to experience it to know what it's like. Personally I have no sympathy for people who so much as THREATEN to use violence unprovoked. It is really almost the same thing as actually using it. They are predators. Talk about humans developing--we should have developed enough so that these animal traits for aggression were evolved out of us long ago....

 

[allan]

One more, then I'm going to bed (got to get to work by 3pm)....

"But the point is that the person is not going to stop at threatening they are going to carry it out. By the time the police have been noticed the person will have already gained money/sex."

Like you said, the police can't be omnipotent and omnipresent, and that is one good argument for letting the female have the gun. She has more chance of preventing the psycho from forcing the rape.

"So a person can carry a legally bought gun determined to do harm with it and until they have done that harm they have done nothing illegal."

This may not sound always perfect, but yes. The alternative is assuming ALL people commit crimes and therefore are suspect to the point of infringing their legitimate right to tools to defend themselves. Should society assume that ALL people are potential criminals, and treat everyone as such? Would you like to live in such a society? Such attitudes are precursors to police states. They are unacceptable attitudes to people who value liberty and individual accountability. In spite of my rhetoric about harsher sentences, I STILL believe that one is innocent until proven guilty--and looking at everyone as likely criminals runs very counter to that.

But, unlike many of my fellow libertarians, I do NOT have a problem with outlawing firearm ownership to felons convicted of previous firearm violence. That in fact should be part of their punishment--after jail, they also lose the right to have one to defend themselves, and can maybe then feel the vulnerability of their unarmed victims.

And even if we did ban guns for everyone, they would not disappear. There are SO many guns in this country that that would be impossible. The net result? I know it's an old argument but--the criminal element would keep their guns illegally, while the law abiders (including our female stalking victim) would turn them in. And actually, quite a few people who otherwise obey the law wouldn't either. But again, if they never commit violence with their guns, are they really criminals? Philosophically, I'd say no.

We will probably never see eye to eye on this one, and frankly I am glad you live across the ocean and have no voice in our politics. Nothing against you, but I value individual freedom AND responsibility more than I fear a gun being used against me. You probably have different priorities. So we're probably at an impasse....

 

[Hurricane]

Originally posted by allan
We will probably never see eye to eye on this one, and frankly I am glad you live across the ocean and have no voice in our politics. Nothing against you, but I value individual freedom AND responsibility more than I fear a gun being used against me. You probably have different priorities. So we're probably at an impasse....

I´m glad you don´t live here, so it´s good to see something we agree on. ´

Unlike MrPresident, I don´t think guns should be totally banned, but put under rigorous restrictions. Collecting guns as a hobby, shooting on the range and hunting are all ok activities, IMHO.

But I say it again, you should never be allowed to use a gun for self-protection. If you feel threathened (the stalking ex-husband again), you can get reasonable protection with non-lethal weapons like pepper-sprays and similar gimmics.

 

[knowltok2]

Originally posted by MrPresident
As for the point about people owning a gun but do no wrong should not be punished well it is the potential for crime that I find worrying. If someone has access to a gun they are a lot more likely to shoot someone than a person without access to a gun.

I would argue that by this logic all drugs should be banned as well. I would contend that someone taking drugs is more likely to commit a crime than someone who is not. I don't agree with this, but then again, I don't think all guns should be banned either.

As for an example of high penalties reducing crime, (This is a stretch, but) What about spitting on the sidewalk in Singapore? As I am given to understand the penalty is quite harsh, and virtually no one does it. There can be a relationship between penalty and deterance.

non-lethal weapons like pepper-sprays and similar gimmics.

Interesting choice of words. These 'gimmics' as you put it are not nearly as effective a deterant as a gun can be. One thing that I think has not been adequetely considered is that much violent crime is not the act of one person against another. Gangs were mentioned, and they do not just send lone members out to commit crimes. 3 large men are not going to be dettered by a women with a small can of mace. They will likely still attack, and even if one or two is incapacitated, the women is still going to suffer. A gun can keep the attack from ever happening. It can also act as an unmistakable warning signal. It may be a unreconcialable difference of opinion, but if I point a gun at someone and they still attack me, they deserve what they get. All I want is for them to go away. I give them that choice, and they still choose to attack me, I don't want to take any extra chances with pepper spray, or another 'gimmick'

 

[vonork]

If people carried guns openly. I would feel all but secure, what if someone got mad at me, I accidentally spilled out his beer, step on his foot. As it is now I only have to consider the fact of getting stabbed (not to fun of course) but I can probably out run him. If he has a gun I probably get shoot.

I think there was a reason to why they started to forbid people to carry guns openly in town around late 1800 in the US. I’m I wrong?

 

[allan]

"If people carried guns openly. I would feel all but secure, what if someone got mad at me, I accidentally spilled out his beer, step on his foot. As it is now I only have to consider the fact of getting stabbed (not to fun of course) but I can probably out run him. If he has a gun I probably get shoot."

Why would he do that? Considering that he didn't use the gun in self defense, he would be committing a crime if he did that, and under my proposed upping the harshness of punishments, he'd rot in a sh*thole jail the rest of his life. And in a crowded bar, his "getting caught" would be a certainty. Witnesses everywhere.... Another armed person in the bar might even make the citizen's arrest (remember that old term?) until the police arrived.

Of course, I don't think guns and alcohol mix very well. I wouldn't mind a law or ordinance which said that bar patrons must leave their weapons at the door, and if they're too intoxicated when they leave, the weapon can be mailed to their home (a small deposit could be left with the weapon at the door, to pay for this service if needed). A bar could implement this as policy if there is no law, too. Probably prudent due to lawsuits....

"I think there was a reason to why they started to forbid people to carry guns openly in town around late 1800 in the US. I’m I wrong?"

I'm just arguing about open weapons vs. CONCEALED ones. People in many states can carry concealed weapons with a permit. Why is CONCEALED any better? At least in the open, people won't risk violent confrontation because they KNOW you are armed. The best scenario is when violent confrontations never even start, right?