Guns make you safer.
Never said it does. But clearly, if guns "caused" violent crime, then you'd be hard pressed to explain all time low crime rates in the presence of all time high numbers for both gun ownership and numbers of guns. Also, gun laws continue to be liberalized with some 40 states passing right to carry laws. Only a few years ago just 10 states had RTC laws.
Simple economic theory explains what's happening. An armed populace increases the risk of "doing business" for criminals. Criminals may be stupid, but they're not that stupid. When the risk of an activity goes up, the numbers of those practicing said activity goes down.
Crimes of passion happen, accidents happen, negligence happens. All this is outweighed by the positive benefits (increased risk for violent criminals) of ever increasing numbers of lawful gun owners.
Simple economic theory explains what's happening. An armed populace increases the risk of "doing business" for criminals. Criminals may be stupid, but they're not that stupid. When the risk of an activity goes up, the numbers of those practicing said activity goes down.
Crimes of passion happen, accidents happen, negligence happens. All this is outweighed by the positive benefits (increased risk for violent criminals) of ever increasing numbers of lawful gun owners.
Day wrote:
As for the tragedy that started this discussion. Negligence happens.
***************
There was another thread about a woman climbing who mistakenly totally unclipped and fell. A poster suggested that this was a wonderful thing because the stupid don't need to procreate. That sort of thinking could present a parallel in this case. If the mother was so stupid as to have a boyfriend like that, maybe she didn't need to birthing offspring either.
ZSpiddy
As for the tragedy that started this discussion. Negligence happens.
***************
There was another thread about a woman climbing who mistakenly totally unclipped and fell. A poster suggested that this was a wonderful thing because the stupid don't need to procreate. That sort of thinking could present a parallel in this case. If the mother was so stupid as to have a boyfriend like that, maybe she didn't need to birthing offspring either.
ZSpiddy
So ideally, All states would pass concealed carry laws and violent crime will drop precipitously. Anyone visibly packing is just a tool and open for confrontation since that is what he is secretly hoping anyway (well maybe, it's right up there with his CIA ID card in his wallet). With concealed carry in place gun advocates would be silenced despite that ever fluctuating incidence of violent crime thing. The new argument would have to be for Visible Deterance. Literally, an arms race for the masses.
I have a big problem with this statement-
Quote:
"Crimes of passion happen, accidents happen, negligence happens. All this is outweighed by the positive benefits (increased risk for violent criminals) of ever increasing numbers of lawful gun owners."
I'm to outweigh the tragic statistics of negligence regarding guns based on prooving a negative? The gun lobby has an odd history with data and statistics. This extrapolation is okay but one from somewhere outside our gun culture with low crime , low gun ownership is voided? I don't consider them outweighed at all cause I don't buy it.
I have a big problem with this statement-
Quote:
"Crimes of passion happen, accidents happen, negligence happens. All this is outweighed by the positive benefits (increased risk for violent criminals) of ever increasing numbers of lawful gun owners."
I'm to outweigh the tragic statistics of negligence regarding guns based on prooving a negative? The gun lobby has an odd history with data and statistics. This extrapolation is okay but one from somewhere outside our gun culture with low crime , low gun ownership is voided? I don't consider them outweighed at all cause I don't buy it.
Maybe it would just be better to drop this line of thinking . I think it was meant as a joke but it's only marginally funny anyway. I wondered about that girl who fell. Young, well loved, pretty (old guys are allowed to find sentiment in those things) very sad. Could just as easily have been someone from this collective. I hope they're recovering ok. She made a mistake.Zspider wrote:Day wrote:
As for the tragedy that started this discussion. Negligence happens.
***************
There was another thread about a woman climbing who mistakenly totally unclipped and fell. A poster suggested that this was a wonderful thing because the stupid don't need to procreate. That sort of thinking could present a parallel in this case. If the mother was so stupid as to have a boyfriend like that, maybe she didn't need to birthing offspring either.
ZSpiddy
Gulliver I think I agree with you to some extent, accidents do happen, they happen to professionals and they happen to idiots, they just happen! I don't agree with the whole maybe they should'nt procreate or date totally irresponsible people mantra, but in both cases those two people and they're family/partners allowed a tragic mistake to happen,so do we blame and punish the neighbor because he heard the shots, saw the knot come loose??? Too many suffer becasue of the mistakes of the few, happens all the time in our country.........stand up and be accounted for your self, quit passing the buck on to others who had nothing to do with your mistakes. I pray for that childs soul and the parents, but why should I pay as well??????gulliver wrote:Maybe it would just be better to drop this line of thinking . I think it was meant as a joke but it's only marginally funny anyway. I wondered about that girl who fell. Young, well loved, pretty (old guys are allowed to find sentiment in those things) very sad. Could just as easily have been someone from this collective. I hope they're recovering ok. She made a mistake.Zspider wrote:Day wrote:
As for the tragedy that started this discussion. Negligence happens.
***************
There was another thread about a woman climbing who mistakenly totally unclipped and fell. A poster suggested that this was a wonderful thing because the stupid don't need to procreate. That sort of thinking could present a parallel in this case. If the mother was so stupid as to have a boyfriend like that, maybe she didn't need to birthing offspring either.
ZSpiddy
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.....
Oh, the irony. Yes, simple economic theory does explain the drop in violent crime during the 90's despite the number of additional guns in circulation. During the 90's there was an economic boom that actually trickled down to poor people, plus there was an administration that was perceived by many poor people in America as caring about them. (The reality is debatable, but that was the perception, anyway.) The causal factor in the recent upswing in violent crime is the perceived slowing economy and increased unemployment, which is exacerbated among lower income Americans.Day wrote:Never said it does. But clearly, if guns "caused" violent crime, then you'd be hard pressed to explain all time low crime rates in the presence of all time high numbers for both gun ownership and numbers of guns. Also, gun laws continue to be liberalized with some 40 states passing right to carry laws. Only a few years ago just 10 states had RTC laws.
Simple economic theory explains what's happening.
I'm glad you brought up the idea of 'economic theory'. Go ask an economist how well 'economic theory' matches reality. The reality is that there have been plenty of guns floating around for decades, and that has been a factor in the decision making of criminals for years. Do you really think that the white, 40-something drug addict who burgled my apartment a few years ago actually thought to himself "hmm... there has been a slight increase in the percentage of the US population with firearms over the last few years. How does that slight increase in risk weigh against my jonze?" These sorts of "rational expectations" theories just don't hold up in reality.An armed populace increases the risk of "doing business" for criminals. Criminals may be stupid, but they're not that stupid. When the risk of an activity goes up, the numbers of those practicing said activity goes down.
It bugs the hell out of me listening to all these freaking suburbanites and rural folks spew about guns and crimes. I grew up in and live in Chicago, Alan has lived in New Orleans (former per capita murder capitol of the US). Go stand on a street corner in East St. Louis or Queens and try spewing that crap - you might not get shot, but you will get rolled pretty fast.
Yes, crimes of passion happen. Yes kids injure each other without understanding what they are doing, yes people hurt themselves irrationally when depressed and using alcohol, yes mentally ill people try to hurt other people because of their mental illness. The issue is that most guns (particularly handguns and so-called 'assault weapons') are tools that are designed to effectively and efficiently hurt and kill human beings. They are well designed and work well. Angry, drunk people kill others and themselves all the time. If they didn't have a gun handy, they would do something else which would be less lethal. Kids cut each other with knives and are taken to the hospital and sewn up - some die, most don't.Crimes of passion happen, accidents happen, negligence happens. All this is outweighed by the positive benefits (increased risk for violent criminals) of ever increasing numbers of lawful gun owners.
It's telling to me that you are using the abstract 'more guns frighten criminals' argument, rather than the ludicrous 'lots of people fend off attackers with guns all the time' line that was spun for years. The sad fact is that there are far more firearm suicides, spouse shootings, kids-shooting-each-other, drunk-argument shootings, and such then there are 'dirty harry fantasy' standoffs where a rapist or burglar is scared off by someone brandishing a gun.
Why doesn't anyone just show some fucking honest Libertarian balls and say "Yes, more guns makes things more dangerous and if that's how Americans want things, then so be it"?
Another issue to discuss is the types of guns out there. It wasn't that long ago that cops had to deal with gang members and drug dealers carrying freaking revolvers. Thanks to the militarization of the drug business during the "War on Drugs", cops now have to deal with fucking AKs and Uzis! The average punk dealer on the corner has a semi-automatic pistol under his down coat with an extra clip or two ready to go. Ask big city cops how they feel about all the extra guns sloshing around the US.
The solution is not a prohibition on guns - that would work as well as the old prohibition on booze or the current prohibition on certain drugs. All around the wrold the real 'weapons of mass destruction' are small arms - guns. And it's the same here in the US.
Bacon is meat candy.