Guns

[Blackguard_]

Why don't we prevent violent crimes from happening in the first place rather than quarreling over how much protection a gun would offer after the fact?

Because that's either a dangerous Utopian notion or a false dilemma.

We can do thing like keep violent criminals locked up and address social/cultural/etc. issues, but you're not going to completely socially engineer out predatory humans. There is nothing wrong with just discussing the best means of personal defense against the violent criminals who will always exist.

Sentencing People for a Pre-Crime?

I think he meant more "keep kids off the streets and in school" type stuff.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

Because that's either a dangerous Utopian notion or a false dilemma.

We can do thing like keep violent criminals locked up and address social/cultural/etc. issues, but you're not going to completely socially engineer out predatory humans. There is nothing wrong with just discussing the best means of personal defense against the violent criminals who will always exist...

I'll take a rational discussion about how to prevent crimes from happening in the first place over a heated debate about how to respond after the fact any day.

I could make plenty of strong arguments that the possession of firearms does not result in any increase in safety. There is probably evidence that people with firearms feel safer and therefore take risks that result in a net gain of zero when it comes to safety.

But while I was making such an argument a preventable crime would likely take place. The more rational thing to do would be to spend time and intellectual resources preventing that crime. You know...figure out the best that we can (the social sciences are not precise) what environmental variables cause a person to attempt armed robbery and then use that knowledge to prevent the armed robbery from ever being attempted.

Sure, it is not going to end all crime. But a crime never happening in the first place is better than having to respond to a crime--no matter what one thinks best prepares him/her to respond.

It is called being prudent. There is nothing utopian about it.

 

[MacFall]

Because that's either a dangerous Utopian notion or a false dilemma.

...I don't know about that. (Stop the presses; I'm about to agree with a Democrat on a point in a thread about gun control).

The ultimate cause of crime may be "human nature", but the proximate causes are addressable. I may disagree with liberals as to how to do so, but I agree with them that they can be addressed.

My recommendations:

- Reduce incentives for crime by reducing poverty (by encouraging productivity; not creating dependency)
- Stop creating criminals by criminalizing peaceful activities
- Stop destroying the nuclear family and local society with meddlesome social programs
- Stop sending children through 12-year programs where they learn to either be a bully or a victim of bullying
- Stop disarming people, which would mean less potential victims

 

[mjmcmillan]

This thread was a tangent from the beginning.

Why don't we prevent violent crimes from happening in the first place rather than quarreling over how much protection a gun would offer after the fact?

How would you go about it??? The only way I know is to change the hearts of men so we no longer have hatred and murder and lust and greed and so on. It's been two thousand years since Jesus ascended to Heaven and men are still as murderous a bunch as ever.

 

[Blackguard_]

I'll take a rational discussion about how to prevent crimes from happening in the first place over a heated debate about how to respond after the fact any day.

I'd only take that discussion some days. This isn't an either/or thing.

I could make plenty of strong arguments that the possession of firearms does not result in any increase in safety.

No, you couldn't. The closest thing you could do is try to conflate the dangerous lives of drug dealers, gangsters, etc. with law abiding citizens as in the infamous Kellerman study.

There is probably evidence that people with firearms feel safer and therefore take risks that result in a net gain of zero when it comes to safety.[/quoteI] 'll bet there's evidence people who don't have guns are bliss ninnies who think nothing bad can ever happen and so take even more risks.

What is it with antis thinking having a gun means you suddenly think it;s accpetable to walk down dark alleys at 2am while drunk?

Maybe people who carry guns are more safe, because they have a weapon and practice the sort of situational awareness avoidance unarmed people do?

If you would care to look into the gun carrying community, that sort of attitude is railed against and the vital importance of situational awareness is extolled. Guns are not magic.

What is it with this either/or attitude? It's a false dilemma.

It is called being prudent. There is nothing utopian about it.

That is imprudent and utopian. It is not prudent to focus on crime prevention to the exclusion of victim defense. It's utopian to think you can do that without getting innocent people hurt and killed.

THIS IS NOT AN EITHER/OR THING!

Why can't people understand having a gun does not mean you can be oblivious to your surroundings and not care about preventing crime from happening to begin with?

What is prudent is to do both. It would be imprudent to focus on defense to the exclusion of avoidance, and it's imprudent to focus on avoidance to the exclusion of defense.

 

[Blackguard_]

...I don't know about that. (Stop the presses; I'm about to agree with a Democrat on a point in a thread about gun control).

The ultimate cause of crime may be "human nature", but the proximate causes are addressable. I may disagree with liberals as to how to do so, but I agree with them that they can be addressed.

I agree to a point that crime can be addressed through social/cultural means,(hence also saying in the post you quoted you could address social/cultural issues) but not that you can deal with it completely that way, as in eliminating crime as opposed to reducing it, and so focusing on social measures to the exclusion of self defense would be a dangerous utopian idea.

I don't think addressing social/cultural problems is useless, but ocial/cultural means can only go so far to address crime. I don't think mankind is perfectible, and I'll bet you don't either. Maybe you misunderstood me?

 

[MacFall]

Maybe I did misunderstand you. Yes, I agree that the idea that human nature can be changed is dangerous. It is the foundation of Utopianism, and one of the most blood-soaked ideas ever to spring from the human mind.

 

[JESUSIAM]

No weapon formed against you shall prosper. -Isaiah 54:17

 

[Blackguard_]

Maybe I did misunderstand you. Yes, I agree that the idea that human nature can be changed is dangerous. It is the foundation of Utopianism, and one of the most blood-soaked ideas ever to spring from the human mind.

Yep, as James Lileks said, "personally, I’m interested in keeping other people from building Utopia, because the more you believe you can create heaven on earth the more likely you are to set up guillotines in the public square to hasten the process."

 

[mjmcmillan]

You can't stop crime until you get evil out of the human heart. Even if we eliminated poverty from the face of the Earth, we'd still have to deal with crimes that rich people commit.

I remember reading some time back of a school bus that was hijacked, and the driver and kids were put into a semi trailer and then buried underground. After they escaped, the story broke about how the perpetrators were three bored rich kids who thought this would be good for a few kicks and maybe some ransom money. This wasn't a case of the victims stupidly walking down a dark alley at two in the morning while waving their wallets in the air and singing "Money". It was about people going about their lawful business with no reasonable expectation that they would be kidnapped by rich kids looking for kicks.

I don't know if the bus driver having a gun would have made a difference. Maybe, maybe not. I do know that trying to blame societal ills for crime is fallacious because there are too many examples to prove it just ain't so. Poor people who, in spite of not getting any breaks, never commit crimes for example. Rich people who, in spite of having everything they could ask for given to them on a golden platter, are capable of the most depraved acts.

Gotta figure out a better idea.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

No one is questioning a right to self defence. We're questioning a right for all and sundry to own weapons designed to kill with little or no appropriate oversight.


Burglary then. Killing an intruder as a first response isn't my idea of a "right", nor is it "self defence".

Maintaining your macho self image is worth someone else's life?

You give up your right to life when you illegally enter the house of another person.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

I wish people who support gun control or banning them altogether would have the courage to tell people that with signs in their front lawn.

The people that want to ban guns would be totally unwilling to let the public know that. Yet, that is exactly what they want all the criminals to know by trying to keep lawful citizens from owning guns.

 

[Spiegelman's Monster]

You give up your right to life when you illegally enter the house of another person.

That is perhaps the silliest thing I've seen on the internet all year.

 

[Spiegelman's Monster]

I wish people who support gun control or banning them altogether would have the courage to tell people that with signs in their front lawn.

The people that want to ban guns would be totally unwilling to let the public know that. Yet, that is exactly what they want all the criminals to know by trying to keep lawful citizens from owning guns.

Be happy to put such a sign on the front lawn. Thats why we have police, neighbourhood watch, and a society of laws. They do a much better job of disuading most criminal activities than the idea that some people might be packing heat.

 

[Blackguard_]

Thats why we have police, neighbourhood watch, and a society of laws.

That "is perhaps the silliest thing I've seen on the internet all year."

and a society of laws.

In civilized societies, the law recognizes the right of personal defense and to the best means of personal defense which is firearms, especially handguns.

They do a much better job of disuading most criminal activities than the idea that some people might be packing heat.

Even if that statement is 100 percent true, it's still a pretty poor argument for gun control.

What is it with people in this thread and false dilemmas?

 

[Zoness]

This is such an AMERICAN issue its ridiculous lol

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Be happy to put such a sign on the front lawn. Thats why we have police, neighbourhood watch, and a society of laws. They do a much better job of disuading most criminal activities than the idea that some people might be packing heat.

The police and neighborhood watch can't help you when your home is invaded.

 

[mjmcmillan]

Police tend to respond after the fact. Neighborhood watches are great, but it depends on anybody just happening to notice when a crime is committed. You'd be surprised-- unpleasantly, at that--- at just how much isn't noticed by your neighborhood watch. Laws are great at telling us what is legal or not, and what the penalty will be if you break the law.

Not one of these will do you a bit of good when a robber/murderer is in your house at two in the morning. The police will come after you're dead, at two in the morning you could have a torchlight procession on your front lawn and the neighborhood watch wouldn't know a thing about it, and the guy who's in your house robbing and killing you is demonstrating how much he respects the law.

Maybe you might consider getting a dog. Specifically one of those yappy dogs that barks at everything. If you can't do it yourself, maybe a neighbor can get one of these nervous pooches. Sure, the noise can get to you after a while, but if you really don't want to be armed it's the next best defense.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

That is imprudent and utopian. It is not prudent to focus on crime prevention to the exclusion of victim defense. It's utopian to think you can do that without getting innocent people hurt and killed...

There are two problems with this.

First, I do not recall anybody saying anything about the "exclusion" of anything. The only thing that I said is that I am more concerned about keeping a crime from being attempted in the first place than I am about what best prepares people to respond after the fact.

Second, innocent people get hurt and killed no matter how they are prepared to respond to a threat.

Better to not have a threat in the first place then to roll the dice with the preparation/response of one's choice after a threat is put into action. Again, it does not matter what preparation or response one thinks is best.

Instead of having a heated debate over how best to deal with threat A why don't we keep threat A from ever being a threat?

 

[Daisy215]

Well my father was shot to death when I was 8, so that's pretty much my entire outlook on guns, is that only law enforcement should have them.

My father was a police officer.