RRC Archives

tomdarch wrote:
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.

Tom, before joining this site, I was never exposed to so much scientifically backed debate, so excuse my ignorance of Economy and such. I do however see your point about the good income, less crime, and low income, no jobs more crime, I do think it holds water. I also
know through direct contact(clients) with some of Cincinnati's Finest street cops, SWAT members, and the ocassional ATF agent that because of concealed carry laws of late they believe alot of the minor to middle felonies are declining(theft,robbery,burglury,rape) while on the other hand shootings and deaths in the inner city are on the rise, most of these guys blame the city government for tieing they're hands since the riots and law suits of late. They blame they're own higher ups, who will not back them when they want to do the job the way it should be done, way to PC.

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.

I don't know where I stand totally on this. in it's basist form it seems right, but so many other things are involved here.

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"?

I don't think "most Americans" know what they want, but more restrictions and laws reguarding they're rights is probably not 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.

I don't like this either, but it seems like natural progression, the cave man threw rocks, they did'nt get the job done, he sharpens a stick and throws it, ok, but not that great, then he ties a string to a stick and uses it to sling his sharp sticks faster and harder wa la, progression, the better mouse trap theory applies here as well. I agree though that most cops want guns in law abiding hands and out of the hands of thugs, stiffer penalties need to be enorced.

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.

I agree totally.....

I was waiting for someone to say what Tomdarch just said. I would have wrote it myself, but I couldn't.

gulliver wrote:

Maybe it would just be better to drop this line of thinking.

***************
That was the subtext of what I was saying.

ZSpiddy

you guys need to join the NRA admensturation

Having rights involves danger. If you're willing to trade them in to remove some perceived safety, Ben Franklin thought that you deserved neither.

ZSpiddy

Zspider wrote:Having rights involves danger. If you're willing to trade them in to remove some perceived safety, Ben Franklin thought that you deserved neither.

ZSpiddy

Which is why we're all against the law that President Bush signed today which suspends habeas corpus for people that he, alone and with no oversight, decides are enemy combatants. Right? Right?

yep he just signed himself in as dictator. all hail the bush

OK, this thread is officially dead.

gunslnga wrote:

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.

I don't like this either, but it seems like natural progression, the cave man threw rocks, they did'nt get the job done, he sharpens a stick and throws it, ok, but not that great, then he ties a string to a stick and uses it to sling his sharp sticks faster and harder wa la, progression, the better mouse trap theory applies here as well. I agree though that most cops want guns in law abiding hands and out of the hands of thugs, stiffer penalties need to be enorced.

Something happened during the 80's in the US, but I don't know what exactly. My sense is that at the end of the 70's very few criminals (or anyone else) in the US had 'serious firepower' like 'assault weapons' and automatic weapons. But during the 'Drug War' a lot more of these weapons seem to be out 'on the streets'. Somehow, during the 70s these sorts of weapons existed in the world, but they weren't out on the streets being aimed at cops. I'd be curious to know what happened.

I was just thinking about something else. There was the claim that more guns caused fewer crimes. But during that same time, Chicago police went from not wearing body armor, to it being manditory. I'd assume that it's the same in a lot of other cities in the US. Part of that might be that the vests got lighter/cheaper/more effective. But my sense is that the change is that police now believe that they are more likely to be shot at. That sucks for the cops, of course, but it also sucks for us because I think that it makes cops more defensive and 'trigger happy'.

Day wrote:OK, this thread is officially dead.

Ooops - we popped the 'truthiness' bubble and now he doesn't want to play...