how to cut down on crime with out sacrificing our liberty ? warning, long rant.

This is a discussion on how to cut down on crime with out sacrificing our liberty ? warning, long rant. within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; so in a recent thread that has since been shut down we discussed the 2A, infringement, control and crime. this will address some questions asked ...

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 34
Like Tree27Likes

Thread: how to cut down on crime with out sacrificing our liberty ? warning, long rant.

  1. #1
    Distinguished Member Array technomonster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Dayton Ohio
    Posts
    1,369

    Lightbulb how to cut down on crime with out sacrificing our liberty ? warning, long rant.

    so in a recent thread that has since been shut down we discussed the 2A, infringement, control and crime.

    this will address some questions asked of me which i did not get to answer in the infringement thread, i don't understand why one would demand answers from someone and then shut down a thread, conveniently before a respond could be posted. i thought that was tactic reserved for the antis. us gun owners pride ourselves as logical and reasonable and responsible right? lets do some reasoning. and hopefully come to some sort of agreeable, workable solution that will make our world a better, safer place for all to enjoy.

    i'm not interested in a discussion on the meaning of the 2A and how it should be interpreted nor am i really inclined to debate more about the morals, merits and righteousness of the 2A. i want to hear from those who insist that harsher punishments are the only thing needed to cut crime. i agree we need stiffer penalties. always have, but HOW are we gonna achieve that with out throwing out our other rights.

    i despise the notion that some guns are too dangerous to be in civilian hands, i believe that those of use who are allowed to own guns should be allowed to have whatever we want, without mag limits and ammo restrictions. with no special distinction of class of weapons such as "assault weapons" or title III devices. i also despise any and all GFZ. they don't work, that much is clear we should allow citizens to defend them self with whatever means available anywhere where they may legally be but i am not for the idea that anyone not in prison should be able to own absolutely anything.

    i would like to make clear again that i don't necessarily like the idea of gun registration or UBC and i fully understand why so many are firmly against it. i have already stated that the slippery slope argument is a valid one. history shows it to be true. any government power can be abused and i understand and agree that we cannot hope to fully regulate anything. yes someone who really wants a nuke can get one. but does that mean we should sell them at the corner store? many insist that i am siding with the antis just because i don't support their "no infringement" ideal world.

    i am simply asking the gun community what we should do to to lower crime rate, yes crime had gone down over the years but we can do better. we all would like less crime, yes?

    so lets pretend for a moment that there are no firearm regulations at all. one can buy a gun just as easily as a pack of gum.(except in Singapore, where gum is outlawed) that is what the "no infringement" crowd wants right? pay and go. slap the cash on the counter and walk out the door with a suppressed belt fed machine gun. an awesome piece of hardware i would like to own myself.

    what this means is that we will need someway to keep criminals and crazies off the street. where they can acquire all sorts of stuff that they can use to inflict massive calamities.

    one member mentioned gas. and if i would be offended to have to produce ID to buy gas. personally no, it would be hassle but i'm not really offended, of the countries i have been to the US is the only place i know of that allows one to pump their own gas. and a fair amount of idiots have driven off with the nozzle or otherwise set themselves on fire putting gas in a can. but really the point is moot because we allow ex-cons and felons on parole to buy gas and drive cars, we also allow teens to buy gas.

    so back to the point i was trying to make, most of us here would agree that we should have more sever punishments for crime, keep anyone who would seek to do others harm locked up. execute those who commit heinous crimes. i'm all for that, bring back public hangings, let's stone the ********. better yet lets sell stones to the town peoples attending the execution. raffle off tickets to folks who would like to pull the switch on the chair. let the kin of murder victims pull the lever on the gallows, have the girl who was raped cut the rope on the guillotine. i remember being criticized for wanting these extreme methods, and yet i was criticized for being soft on crime during the "infringement" discussion. i'm also not a fan of the war on drugs, it's huge wast of resources and violent felons are being released to make room for the guy with a bag of pot, ridiculous! id rather they legalize drugs so we can tax it and control it's quality.

    so here comes the big question that no one cared to answer because they were too busy bashing me for siding with the antis and "playing right in to their game"...

    how can we have a strong justice system that cannot be abused by the government? the slippery slope argument that we are so found of can be applied to the justice system as well. mainland China for example, crimes are often "solved" with in hours. criminals swiftly put to death. traffickers, murders, robbers, rapist, kidnappers, corruption, tax evasion...to the firing squad all the same. sounds great right? if only our justice system could be so "efficient"

    how is China able to have such a great system you ask? simple, no right to counsel, no right to be tried by jury, no right to not incriminate self, no rights in general really. is this the type of justice system we want? i dont think so.

    in order to impose death and life sentences we need to be sure of the crime, no plea deals, that means no sloppy convictions, which translates into low conviction rates and that leads to criminals walking the street...buying guns...and gasoline.


    funny how many who worry about infringement of the 2A is so willing to give the court such power which can be just as easily abused to infringe on our right to LIFE, LIBERTY, and PERUSE OF HAPPINESS. are these rights less important then the 2A? i hope not. but how would we preserve BOTH? that's the answer i'm looking for. not snippy remarks or the same old "quit trying to regulate what cannot be" and "only outlaw will have guns" argument, they are valid arguments, i use it all the time when dealing with the extreme left. i'm familier with the logic and i don't disagree. you can save the disparity of force without guns argument, i'm familier with that too and i dont disagree but facts is that many crimes ARE committed with guns. what i'm really interested in is what the no-infringers (yep,i just made that up) intend to do about crime? not just gun crime, but crime in general. what do we do about the CRIMINALS? . sure we can all carry guns and i would love that, but what about those who cannot, the very young, the very old, the handicapped. and lets not kid ourselves here, just because we carry dont mean that we are immune to crime. many of us have family and friends who refuse to carry. many of you have wives and daughters who are not keen on guns. as a civilized society we have a duty to try and provide them a safe environment.

    for those who appose some sort of minimal storage requirement and reporting of stolen guns:

    most guns used in crimes are not purchased at the LGS where BC is conducted nor are they acquired at gun shows. even fewer are bought from respectable gun owners who will not sell a gun to those they feel uneasy with. they are stolen. so whats so infringing about safe storage and reporting. we can require safe storage without inspection, we can require reporting without registration. it would not be 100% but what is? law abiding citizens are law abiding by choice, right? so if the requirement is there most will be compelled to do so when they way otherwise feel there is no need or that it would do no good.

    some of you got angry at me, saying "well none of MY guns have been used in a crime" and you assume i'm a criminal !... sure, none of your guns have been stolen, yet. i have never had a gun stolen either but many here have admitted to losing guns to theft, many of those guns were left in cars. a car is a bad place to keep a gun, it is easily broken into. if there were no GFZ then we would not be forced to leave our guns in the car. but then there are folks who just choose to leave a gun in the car, knowing how easily it could be stolen. and then some choose not to report gun that are stolen.

    we agree that we want criminal to help accountable right? if the guns is reported stolen then when it's found it can be used against the BG, it's one more thing to tag on to get the longer sentences we want. sure the cops will now know that you own that gun but you would have not gotten it back otherwise. you can still sell it later, even if you dont want UBG which i agree = registration you can at least get behind reporting and storage requirements. even if it's not truly enforceable and will mostly rely on the honer system. i'd like to think that my fellow gun owners are law abiding citizens and their word can be counted on. that we can see past ideals and do something for the greater good. and to quote a member who criticized me on the other thread "dont miss the forest for the trees"


    before you reply, check out these links

    questions and answers, most profound comic strip ever :A Day at the Park - Comics that say something. - Quora

    how to disagree, effective and convincing arguments that help get your point across: How to Disagree
    “Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains.” Winston Churchill

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    VIP Member Array OutWestSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    2,171
    In my economics class we spent a few weeks on the "Economics of Crime". Some surprising things came up in the class. Longer and harsher punishments do not discourage crime, because the typical criminal does not believe they will be caught. What does limit crime, the threat of being harmed during the act, or the lack of the ability to benefit from the crime.

    So, an armed citizenship does limit crime, also we need to crack down on the folks that allow the criminals to sell the stuff they stole.

    With all of that said, crime has been going down to keep it going down we need to have parents be parents instead of friends.
    SCXDm9, phreddy, tdave and 4 others like this.

  4. #3
    Distinguished Member Array technomonster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Dayton Ohio
    Posts
    1,369
    crime does pay, that's a problem for sure, no arguments, solutions?

    no, criminals dont think they will get caught or get shot, if they did they would not be committing crimes, but eventually they will get busted, then what? we can't really deter them. but we can reduce repeat offenders. shooting them at the point of violation is perhaps the most effective but that's not how it always work out.

    let parents be parents, good point and agreed, didn't think i needed to bring that up, but that's very vague and not enforceable. if only we were all more enlightened, we would no problems at all.

    we are humans, we will always have crime. how do we deal with them more effictivly ? besides just hoping for a prosperous utopia where everyone is happy and there is no incentive to commit crime?

    punish those who sell stolen goods, and stolen guns perhaps? how do we do that if we are not even willing to report a stolen gun? laptops and TVs have serial numbers. they are not registered but we can still report it stolen, right? is that not reasonable? this is not directed at you OutWest but more of a general question.
    “Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains.” Winston Churchill

  5. #4
    Distinguished Member Array BadgerJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Mid-Atlantic
    Posts
    1,419
    Arm all females with pink semi-autos or revolvers. Encourage the open carrying of firearms. Don't let felons back on the streets. Decriminalize victimless crimes, freeing up LEOs to catch actual criminals. Penalize LEOs with pay cuts for making up offenses, illegal search and seizures, and stop allowing LEOs to lie. Disarm LEOs and require them to use sheer numbers, radios, less lethal means and patience to apprehend criminals.

    As punishment for those caught in the act, public flogging.

    Citizen oversight of LEOs and judges.

    It's not about the gun.

  6. #5
    VIP Member Array maxwell97's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    3,297
    We must give up on the idea of rehabilitation. Keep all the protections meant to keep innocent people from being convicted, but once they ARE convicted, PUNISH them. If we're not going to do physical punishment, then for whatever term they serve, keep them locked in their cell 23 hours a day, with no libraries, tv, fancy gyms, or anything else. And NO parole for violent offenders.

    We could fund it easily enough by legalizing drugs. The money saved on enforcement and incarceration for non-violent drug offenses, plus the tax revenue generated by legal sales of marijuana, would keep violent offenders safely locked away for as long as needed.

    If we found the will to do these things, crime rates would plummet. Until then, any form of gun control is a distraction from the utter failure of our government to perform its most basic duty.
    Tzadik likes this.
    "Yet this government never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got out of the way... The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way."

  7. #6
    Ex Member Array DetChris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    2,625

    how to cut down on crime with out sacrificing our liberty ? warning, long rant.

    Quote Originally Posted by BadgerJ View Post
    Arm all females with pink semi-autos or revolvers. Encourage the open carrying of firearms. Don't let felons back on the streets. Decriminalize victimless crimes, freeing up LEOs to catch actual criminals. Penalize LEOs with pay cuts for making up offenses, illegal search and seizures, and stop allowing LEOs to lie. Disarm LEOs and require them to use sheer numbers, radios, less lethal means and patience to apprehend criminals.

    As punishment for those caught in the act, public flogging.

    Citizen oversight of LEOs and judges.

    It's not about the gun.
    Interesting thread (I was dismayed that the shall not be infringed thread got closed too. It was a thoughtful if heated debate).

    And this ^ is an interesting response! BadgerJ care to elaborate on the reasons for each? Or was all that sarcasm?

  8. #7
    VIP Member Array Brad426's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    3,841
    Quote Originally Posted by OutWestSystems View Post
    In my economics class we spent a few weeks on the "Economics of Crime". Some surprising things came up in the class. Longer and harsher punishments do not discourage crime, because the typical criminal does not believe they will be caught. What does limit crime, the threat of being harmed during the act, or the lack of the ability to benefit from the crime.

    So, an armed citizenship does limit crime, also we need to crack down on the folks that allow the criminals to sell the stuff they stole.

    With all of that said, crime has been going down to keep it going down we need to have parents be parents instead of friends.
    And I would add the threat of being harmed immediately afterwards if caught. Capital punishment has never been a big deterrent, but corporal punishment has been. Quick, public corporal punishment if found guilty. That'll do her.
    scottync likes this.
    I have a very strict gun control policy: if there's a gun around, I want to be in control of it.
    Clint Eastwood

  9. #8
    VIP Member Array tdave's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    2,654
    Quote Originally Posted by BadgerJ View Post
    Arm all females with pink semi-autos or revolvers. Encourage the open carrying of firearms. Don't let felons back on the streets. Decriminalize victimless crimes, freeing up LEOs to catch actual criminals. Penalize LEOs with pay cuts for making up offenses, illegal search and seizures, and stop allowing LEOs to lie. Disarm LEOs and require them to use sheer numbers, radios, less lethal means and patience to apprehend criminals.

    As punishment for those caught in the act, public flo
    Citizen oversight of LEOs and judges.

    It's not about the gun.
    Hope you start feeling better

  10. #9
    Member Array hwarang54's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Panama City
    Posts
    470
    You want crime to go down, proper punishments and ENFORCEMENT is required. Crime stats are a tricky thing, especially if u know how to manipulate statistics.

    Most crime is driven by the extreme desire for money and power. That's what it all comes down to from my short sighted perspective.

    Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

  11. #10
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,782
    Act within the strict confines of Constitutional options available to us. Meaning, infringements upon simple ownership or carrying of arms is not one of the options.

    Work hard to arm as great a percentage of the citizen population as humanly possible. The old adage about folks carrying arms because they can't carry a cop is important to recognize, for its underlying truth. Calling 911 is a pipe dream for many people, in terms of actually stopping violent crime on the instant it occurs. Having an immediate response versus one 5mins distant beats that nearly every time, when the chips are down. Meaning, relax the ludicrous might-never-issue restrictions (ultimately nixing all CHL permissions processes, IMO, unconstitutional as they are); offer tax credits for defensive arms training for first-timers, quals for CHL/training, sidearm/ammo purchases (up to a max amt).

    Work hard to promote hardening of people's homes, cars, businesses. Beefed-up doors/frames, windows, locks, alarms. Offer tax credits for "beefing-up" steps taken (up to a max amt).

    Dramatically stiffen penalties for the most-violent crimes. No more of this turnstile approach to avoiding crime control; enforce the statutes, heavily, stiffly and without fail. Strike the worst of violent crime/criminals head on, via flat removal from society. Permanent removal for the worst of violent crimes, for violent recidivist crimes (ie, multiple/continuing armed robbery or murder). Once was, we executed our worst. Rehab doesn't work with the vast majority of them. The wussification must stop, if these predators are to not walk amongst us again. While it might well not provide deterrence effect for other violent criminals, it most surely deters (permanently) the ones removed permanently. Costs less, as well, as compared to warehousing them forever. Perhaps consider some of the deterrent steps done in some other countries: hands removed for robbery/burglary, etc. Public square hangings might offer some deterrent effect, for those seeing what's done with the worst of the worst. STOP overcrowding the prisons with low-level drug possession and first-timers, finding alternatives that will indeed have a chance of rehab (which practically no prison environment can every supply).

    Get a mental health program going, again, in the USA. Once had one, now we don't, although a few states are making good hay from little. It should be a strong alternative, particularly in lower-grade crimes where folks can be helped instead of hindered (and taught all the hardcore crap that gets learned via imprisonment).

    Turn policing on its head. Get inside communities, with policing. Get cops back on the streets, engaging. Heavily limited by resources; not easily achievable in many communities, given resources and tools. Neighbors generally know where the drug houses are, know who the baddies in the community are.

    That'll pretty much do it. In time, it'll bear quite a lot of fruit, I think. But only to the extent we apply it heavily and often, and only to the extent people actually participate in their own defense, hardening of their own homes, finally taking responsibility for their own safety and security. To the extent the vast majority continue to fail to do beans about it, we'll get "baked beans" (many victims).
    DetChris and technomonster like this.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  12. #11
    VIP Member Array StormRhydr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Music City, USA
    Posts
    3,081
    Harsher punishment is a carrot to be dangled by politicians before the rubes, to get their votes. Its nonsense. For decades penalties for crimes have only gotten WORSE.

    Worse to the point that we now have more people locked up than any other nation on earth. If you focus on punishment, you have lost. Did harsh drug laws deter anyone? I admit, they deterred me. I wanted to do things with my life that I couldnt do with drug convictions, but for a large section of the population, they seem to do nothing other than get people convicted and locked up.

    ALSO we now have for profit prisons. You can bet that THEY want longer sentences. They need their raw products.

    What we need are jobs, and cops on the beat. Certainly we dont need to be cutting LE enforcement in the middle of a depression.

    Scrap NAFTA and the tax incentives that allow the "jobs cremators" to ship jobs to china, put cops back on the beat, and treat drug offenses as addiction issues, and lets move on to something that works.

  13. #12
    VIP Member Array StormRhydr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Music City, USA
    Posts
    3,081
    Harsher punishment is a carrot to be dangled by politicians before the rubes, to get their votes. Its nonsense. For decades penalties for crimes have only gotten WORSE.

    Worse to the point that we now have more people locked up than any other nation on earth. If you focus on punishment, you have lost. Did harsh drug laws deter anyone? I admit, they deterred me. I wanted to do things with my life that I couldnt do with drug convictions, but for a large section of the population, they seem to do nothing other than get people convicted and locked up.

    ALSO we now have for profit prisons. You can bet that THEY want longer sentences. They need their raw products.

    What we need are jobs, and cops on the beat. Certainly we dont need to be cutting LE enforcement in the middle of a depression.

    Scrap NAFTA and the tax incentives that allow the "jobs cremators" to ship jobs to china, put cops back on the beat, and treat drug offenses as addiction issues, and lets move on to something that works.

  14. #13
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,782
    Quote Originally Posted by StormRhydr View Post
    Harsher punishment is a carrot to be dangled by politicians before the rubes, to get their votes. Its nonsense. For decades penalties for crimes have only gotten WORSE.

    Worse to the point that we now have more people locked up than any other nation on earth. If you focus on punishment, you have lost. Did harsh drug laws deter anyone? I admit, they deterred me.
    Right. Deterrence of others isn't the primary benefit of removal from society. Removal of that one individual is the primary benefit ... with whatever degree of harshness that requires.

    Agreed, that far, far too many things involve imprisonment each and every instance. Many things can have viable alternatives that have a prayer of offering "rehab" (changing of the person's course in life, options). IMO, though, none of this applies to the violent predator crimes.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  15. #14
    VIP Member Array Badey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    3,064
    No plea bargains or other deals to reduce sentences.

    More public shaming involved of crime and criminals.




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free
    ccw9mm likes this.
    Though defensive violence will always be a sad necessity in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men -St. Augustine

  16. #15
    VIP Member Array StormRhydr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Music City, USA
    Posts
    3,081
    Yes, I agree re the people that people since time began wanted locked up.

    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    Right. Deterrence of others isn't the primary benefit of removal from society. Removal of that one individual is the primary benefit ... with whatever degree of harshness that requires.

    Agreed, that far, far too many things involve imprisonment each and every instance. Many things can have viable alternatives that have a prayer of offering "rehab" (changing of the person's course in life, options). IMO, though, none of this applies to the violent predator crimes.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •