Hey - I'm not favouring my words to make them sound either for-or-against. I'm just trying to call it how it is. If it sounds bad to you, well, there it is. If it sounds good to you, well, there it is! A global government originating from Washington. Sure, I could live with that. Not sure a few billion others would put up with it, though, but that's prob just because they are objectionable.
Like the Life of Brian "What did the Romans ever do for us" sketch....
The path to world peace
We dont have as "liberal" (gggg) gun laws in Austria, as you have in the US. Strangely enough though, we dont have as high a crimerate either.Right, in theory it works. In practice it's best to include the right to bear arms within the law to make sure that practice more closely resembles theory.
Our police is doing a good job at keeping the criminals at bay, mostly.
Of course you could just have people shooting each other over property crimes, or suspected property crimes (because just because you have a gun, does not mean that you are shooting at the right guy).
That is what I call anarchy. The right of the strongest. The one with the biggest gun(s) gets his way.
This is not law and order, it is what gangsters do. Take a look at Oakland! A bunch of thugs with guns and nobody there can even cross the street anymore wearing a certain colored clothing...
I sure dont want that.
Well
You don't arm the public to protect them from their peers. You arm them to keep the president from declaring himself dictator. Which in turn keeps the Law at least influenced by the public, which keeps the ones enforcing the Law at least on the same side as the public.Skipjack wrote:We dont have as "liberal" (gggg) gun laws in Austria, as you have in the US. Strangely enough though, we dont have as high a crimerate either.Right, in theory it works. In practice it's best to include the right to bear arms within the law to make sure that practice more closely resembles theory.
Our police is doing a good job at keeping the criminals at bay, mostly.
Of course you could just have people shooting each other over property crimes, or suspected property crimes (because just because you have a gun, does not mean that you are shooting at the right guy).
That is what I call anarchy. The right of the strongest. The one with the biggest gun(s) gets his way.
This is not law and order, it is what gangsters do. Take a look at Oakland! A bunch of thugs with guns and nobody there can even cross the street anymore wearing a certain colored clothing...
I sure dont want that.
We have price supports for criminals in America. We love our black markets.Take a look at Oakland! A bunch of thugs with guns and nobody there can even cross the street anymore wearing a certain colored clothing...
BTW we have found that allowing the population to be armed either has no effect on violent crime or it goes down slightly.
Of course the Swiss make their citizens buy (or do they issue) assault rifles. So the level of violence may or may not have anything to do with armed citizens. It may be more a cultural thing.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
If I recall correctly, Charles Murray asserted that if you take the minorities out of the crime statistics, Crime in the USA is lower than any country in Europe.MSimon wrote:We have price supports for criminals in America. We love our black markets.Take a look at Oakland! A bunch of thugs with guns and nobody there can even cross the street anymore wearing a certain colored clothing...
BTW we have found that allowing the population to be armed either has no effect on violent crime or it goes down slightly.
Of course the Swiss make their citizens buy (or do they issue) assault rifles. So the level of violence may or may not have anything to do with armed citizens. It may be more a cultural thing.
Nowadays, people aren't allowed to say such things without being demonized. (Which he was, for his book "Bell Curve" and other writings)
As for the Guns, all the legitimate studies that I have read indicate a drastic reduction in crime when the public is armed.
Apart from that, we don't debate how much the First Amendment affects crime, nor should we do it for the Second Amendment. A right is beyond debate.
No, this is not correct.Of course the Swiss make their citizens buy (or do they issue) assault rifles.
Every male citizens that is mentally and physically capable (about 60%) has to do 21 weeks of training and then additional 3 weeks of training every year.
These citizens are allowed to take their weapon home with them after the 21 weeks of training are complete. However, it is a demilitarized version (not fully automatic, but semi automatic). Since recently they do not get any ammunition with it anymore.
All other weapons are actually rather strictly regulated, especially knives, swords and even tasers can not be sold or possessed.
A Sig550 is rather hard to hide, since it is a rather biggish rifle. So it does not present itself as a good weapon of choice for committing crimes with (where you would probably prefer something "a little" more sublte).
Re: Semantics
in theory it works. In practice, arming the citizens results in even more violence and unlawfulness.bcglorf wrote:Right, in theory it works. In practice it's best to include the right to bear arms within the law to make sure that practice more closely resembles theory.chrismb wrote:Theoretically.bcglorf wrote:Policemen don't keep order, people and society keeps order.
Semantics.
Policeman are people, and a part of society. In the western world, they are the people tasked by society with enforcing law and order.
That's what the liberals tell themselves.
Re: Semantics
Where did you obtain your facts? Real facts are: allowing citizens to be armed either has no effect on violent crime or reduces it slightly ~10% - 20%. At least in America.AcesHigh wrote:in theory it works. In practice, arming the citizens results in even more violence and unlawfulness.bcglorf wrote:Right, in theory it works. In practice it's best to include the right to bear arms within the law to make sure that practice more closely resembles theory.chrismb wrote:Theoretically.
That's what the liberals tell themselves.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Honestly, it is hard to compare the effect of gun laws in most cases, and making broad assessments about the contribution of legal gun ownership to crime in the US as a whole is difficult.
In specific cases we have really good data. Those cases occur when restrictive gun laws have been overturned by the courts. It just happened in Chicago, and happened a few years back in DC. DC's murder rate has not exploded as a result, and I think the numbers show a definite drop. Frankly, the drop probably has more to do with changes in public attitude (less tolerance of criminals) and better police effectiveness than private gun ownership has made.
There is an old saw popular in the NRA: If gun ownership is made criminal, only criminals will have guns. There was no shortage of guns in DC prior to relaxing the ban, but they were owned by gangstas. This included machine guns. The gangs routinely sprayed groups of people on the streets, not minding who they hit trying to take out a rival.
We had similar stories in the "roaring twenties", tales of gang massacres such as the legendary "Valentines Day Massacre." Or tales of the wild west, such as the Shootout at the OK Coral. What changed? Gun laws? Public attitudes? Better police effectiveness? Or did the gangstas simply kill each other off?
What we see in DC is the situation got so bad the public stopped making excuses for the criminals. The DC government responded (new mayors helped) and changed leadership and policies in the police department so that the police worked better with communities. DC has also made some dramatic improvements in its schools, which has involved private efforts to offer scholarships to DC kids. This has reduced the attractiveness of the gangsta lifestyle.
Still a long way to go, but public attitude drives all. An expectation that things can get better, and a demand that it be so, with the committment to do what is necessary to support the changes, is what really reduces crime.
Although a 9 mm hollow point right betweem the eyes of a home invader has a certain chilling effect, too, for the gangstas who persist.
In specific cases we have really good data. Those cases occur when restrictive gun laws have been overturned by the courts. It just happened in Chicago, and happened a few years back in DC. DC's murder rate has not exploded as a result, and I think the numbers show a definite drop. Frankly, the drop probably has more to do with changes in public attitude (less tolerance of criminals) and better police effectiveness than private gun ownership has made.
There is an old saw popular in the NRA: If gun ownership is made criminal, only criminals will have guns. There was no shortage of guns in DC prior to relaxing the ban, but they were owned by gangstas. This included machine guns. The gangs routinely sprayed groups of people on the streets, not minding who they hit trying to take out a rival.
We had similar stories in the "roaring twenties", tales of gang massacres such as the legendary "Valentines Day Massacre." Or tales of the wild west, such as the Shootout at the OK Coral. What changed? Gun laws? Public attitudes? Better police effectiveness? Or did the gangstas simply kill each other off?
What we see in DC is the situation got so bad the public stopped making excuses for the criminals. The DC government responded (new mayors helped) and changed leadership and policies in the police department so that the police worked better with communities. DC has also made some dramatic improvements in its schools, which has involved private efforts to offer scholarships to DC kids. This has reduced the attractiveness of the gangsta lifestyle.
Still a long way to go, but public attitude drives all. An expectation that things can get better, and a demand that it be so, with the committment to do what is necessary to support the changes, is what really reduces crime.
Although a 9 mm hollow point right betweem the eyes of a home invader has a certain chilling effect, too, for the gangstas who persist.
More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, Third Edition (Studies in Law and Economics) John R. LottSkipjack wrote:And where do you get these "facts" from?Real facts are: allowing citizens to be armed either has no effect on violent crime or reduces it slightly ~10% - 20%.
The NRA?
LOL
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Until you realize that you just shot your doughters boyfriend who tried to sneak out of the house after a midnight visit. Sure that may be just as much a reason to kill him (gggg), but might cause slight frictions in the familyAlthough a 9 mm hollow point right betweem the eyes of a home invader has a certain chilling effect, too, for the gangstas who persist.
Anyway, having guns in every home does not replace a police force.
The general public has very little grasp of the law and when the use of deadly force is justified. The police at least has to know this in theory.
They may still overreact at times, but at least they have to answer to somebody. If you just let everybody shoot arround for whatever reason they deem appropriate, you have chaos.
To go with the prior example of the home invader:
FatherX shoots home invader. Home invaders father/brother/friend shoots fatherX in revenge. The son of fatherX goes and kills home invaders fathers/brother/friend in revenge for that and also kills the rest of the family to make sure those "gangstas" never come back. Of course the other members of the gang dont like that either and soon the entire neighbourhood is burning. I think that this is particularily likely to happen, when you involve people like Msimon, who favor "disproportionate response". With people like that a single incident can escalate really quickly. Especially if you dont have any police force of some kind that is neutral to maintain the order.