Protest Easy Guns

[Guest Len]

I wish everyone would understand the wisdom of Dave's statement. I'm sure we on this board agree with it, but many others don't. And the reason they don't is that they have not thought it out or they are ignorant or are following their idealogical leaders, etc.

The only way to keep people from obtaining guns is to not have any guns to obtain. And even if we could make them all go away, people will simply build their own. (Much as many make their own drugs.) And even if we could stop that, people would still throw rocks and beat each other with sticks, etc. What then? Take away the sticks and stones?

We have to address the underlying social, philosophical, mental, and economical reasons for un-necessary violence and killing. And of course, this takes more time, thought and energy than it does to introduce legislation to ban something.

No amount of anti-gun legislation could have stopped Cho from obtaining a gun. I think we can all agree that is a fact. Drugs are illegal but if you want them you can get them.

[Marswolf]

Len I totally agree. Did you know you just gave a good reason to eliminate the drug laws?

Back in the 60s I build my own weapons, like cannons to fire marbles and arrows. I commented at the time that if guns were ever banned, I'd just make my own.

[The Rabbi]

Len, what is an "economic reason" for killing? How many killings, outside of the drug world, are motivated by economics? Please explain.

[Guest crytes]

I belive that when he refered to economical reasons for unnesisary violence and killing he waas indeed refering to unlawful financial activities such as robbery and elimination on rivals in any ileagal operation, and the deaths of those unfortunate enough to get in the way. Besides that there are those who see the main cause of war to be the profits some companies seem to be able acheive during times of war. I would also atribute deaths resulting from our system of health insurance to be of an econimical cause though the word killed is inapropiate ther the resault is the same.

Crytes

[Guest Len]

So true. If it were up to me, drug laws would be WAY different. But that's another ballgame entirely.

Len I totally agree. Did you know you just gave a good reason to eliminate the drug laws?

Back in the 60s I build my own weapons, like cannons to fire marbles and arrows. I commented at the time that if guns were ever banned, I'd just make my own.

[Guest Len]

What crytes said.

Illegal drug trafficking and its many ancillary effects have quite the impact on

the violent crime rate.

Also, there is statistical evidence to support the idea that good economic times lower crime rates. Some people will work rather than steal if given the opportunity. Not all of them, but some.

Showing my bias here, but I believe economic issues, both macro and micro, local, national, international, all have a HUGE impact on everything from crime, to poverty, to international relations, etc.

Len, what is an "economic reason" for killing? How many killings, outside of the drug world, are motivated by economics? Please explain.

[Marswolf]

Economic situations do impact the crime rate. But that isn't an excuse to feel sorry for the thugs. That's the difference between a liberal and a conservative. The liberals blame society for the bad economic conditions that "drive" people to crime. The conservatives know that thuggery is human nature and scum will do whatever is easiest. Maybe bad economic times are a reason to increase the number of cops - and concealed handguns in the hands of good people....

The drug war is a waste of money and manpower. I do think it's unfortunate that people use drugs. Lots of ruined lives because of that. Buried a good friend last year who got hooked and couldn't get his life straightened out. But liking to get high is part of the human genome and we'll never legislate enjoying, and therefore using, drugs out of existence. The drug laws do little more than fund terrorism and fill our jails with people who should be working members of society.

We need to get off of our moral high horse and get realistic about the use of drugs and the true cost of the war on drugs.

Back in the 60s, Lenny Bruce joked that marijuana would be legal in 20 years because every law student he knew smoked it. He missed that one. I guess there is more enjoyment for the lawyers in making money from the druggies than in using drugs.

[Guest ProguninTN]

Who's up for an OC meetup in Nashville that afternoon?

Sounds good to me.

[The Rabbi]

What crytes said.

Illegal drug trafficking and its many ancillary effects have quite the impact on

the violent crime rate.

Also, there is statistical evidence to support the idea that good economic times lower crime rates. Some people will work rather than steal if given the opportunity. Not all of them, but some.

Showing my bias here, but I believe economic issues, both macro and micro, local, national, international, all have a HUGE impact on everything from crime, to poverty, to international relations, etc.

No, the notion that people commit crimes because they are poor is a non-starter. There are many poor people who do not commit crimes.

As for killing, most killings are crimes of passion. In TN you are far more likely to be killed by someone you know than by someone you don't. That includes jealous spouses, crazy in-laws etc.

As for drugs, I am aware of one society that successfully battled a drug problem so endemic it affected the highest levels of society. Virtually every segment, from government to military to business, was negatively affected because even people in the upper echelons were whacked out on drugs. This is what happens when drugs are decriminalized/legalized. But within 20 years the problem pretty well ceased to exist. That sounds like success to me.

[Guest Len]

No, the notion that people commit crimes because they are poor is a non-starter. There are many poor people who do not commit crimes.

Uh, no. It IS a starter. While it is true that many people who are poor do not commit crimes, it is also quite true that many people who do commit crimes do so party due to their economic situation. As I said in my original comment, some do, some don't. Economics, whether the economics of poverty or the economics of the drug trade have a large role to play in crime. In many of our federal prisons, the majority of violent felons are there due to incidents either directly or indirectly tied to drug violence.

Sure, much murder is passion-based. But much is economic based. Look at homicides right here in Nashville. So many as a direct result of drug violence/gang violence.

As for drugs, Marswolf pretty much sums up my general feeling on the subject. A huge waste of money to control the uncontrollable.

[Guest Len]

Economic situations do impact the crime rate. But that isn't an excuse to feel sorry for the thugs. That's the difference between a liberal and a conservative. The liberals blame society for the bad economic conditions that "drive" people to crime. The conservatives know that thuggery is human nature and scum will do whatever is easiest. Maybe bad economic times are a reason to increase the number of cops - and concealed handguns in the hands of good people....

I dont know how I feel about the above paragraph. One the one hand, I thinks its pretty much an over-generalization of the differences between the liberal and conservatives. On the other hand, there is much to be said for the classic nature/nurture argument this implies. I personally believe there is enough blame to go around -that it is both. Clearly there is tons of evidence to support the theory that societal and economic issues play a role in criminal/voilent behavior. There is also the human element and associated evidence to support that idea.

So, I'm willing to believe both are involved. Which then are we able to control to some extent? Obviously society. (Economic systems, political systems, etc.) And hence my liberalism is both explained and exposed. Will we "grow out" of our human nature? Maybe, if we live long enough -it'll only take a few million years. We are only a fairly recently domesticated species, after all.

Maybe now that we can map the genome and are working to develop drugs based on genetics, we can design a drug to eliminate thuggery from our genes. Oh, the irony!

In the meantime, I will go armed.

[Guest crytes]

As to the "human nature" element of violence, I belive agresive/violent tendancies are ire intertwined and inseprable to our drive to advance ourselves. Almost all violence even the crimes of pasion stem from one thing you want what you see as yours. For example food, teritory, property, money, stature are all thing peopple want and troughout history people have either found way to acheive these or take them from those who have then those who acheived theise things develooped ways to keep them and you begin escalation of force. Everyone want the same thing and some will always get them by the sweat of their brow while others will always attempt to take what they can. If this fundumental drive was removed humanity would stagnate and die as it is we are the only thing keeping ourselves in check. The best you can ever do is not be a victim becouse regardless of whats outside your window you still live in the jungle.

Crytes

[Marswolf]

I dont know how I feel about the above paragraph. One the one hand, I thinks its pretty much an over-generalization of the differences between the liberal and conservatives.

I think I have the liberal view nailed, but I do give the so-called conservatives too much credit.

My view is that liberals tent to emote rather than think and reason - although they are unable to see that. And modern "conservatives" aren't conserving the basic principles of the country at all - although they are unable to see that. They are mostly being moralist busybodies.

The country was founded on the idea that each person pretty much takes care of himself and his own family and leaves others alone to take care of their family. That's the way it should be, in my opinion. That government is best which governs least. That's the idea I want to conserve.

[The Rabbi]

Uh, no. It IS a starter. While it is true that many people who are poor do not commit crimes, it is also quite true that many people who do commit crimes do so party due to their economic situation. As I said in my original comment, some do, some don't. Economics, whether the economics of poverty or the economics of the drug trade have a large role to play in crime. In many of our federal prisons, the majority of violent felons are there due to incidents either directly or indirectly tied to drug violence.

You have undermined your own argument by admitting that many (the majority) of poor people do not commit murder, or other felonious acts.

Most murders are committed under the influence of drugs. Two people argue and it escalates until one is standing over a dead body with little idea how it got that way. There is no economics involved.

I once asked a public defender lawyer how many of his cases involved drugs/alcohol. He told me virtually all of them.

The number of murders committed pursuant to a gang war is actually pretty small.

Poverty does not cause crime, any more than pregnancy causes children. I know it is an icon of the liberal mindset but it is not true and has been debunked for probably 40 years. What does cause it is a cultural mindset that emphasizes: easy quick solutions to hard problems, lack of personal responsibility, and lack of consequences for actions taken. Tackle those issues and the others will fall into place.

[towerclimber37]

I agree with Rabbi on this as well as with Marswolf.

Rabbi and I may disagree on some things..but on this we're 100%....

If the concept that poverty causes crime were true, my mother would have succumbed to it..she was poor for many years of her life and was a God fearing, decent woman who often shared what little she had with others.

I can remember many a meal of corned beef hash and rice...one of the cheapest meals to make that will fill folks up.

I remember my grandmother once told me to "mind my own business and make sure others do the same"..which falls in line with Mars' point of thinking.

[DaveTN]

The concept isn’t that poverty causes crime. As the economy gets worse crime will rise and that’s not a concept it’s a fact. As someone else pointed out there are a lot of criminals that would work if they could. But when people start losing their homes or can’t feed their family; they will steal, burglarize houses, sell drugs, or just about anything else.

I’m not condoning it or asking anyone to feel sorry for them, but you ain’t seen nothing yet.

Look at how many young people today think that stealing money by using a computer is more acceptable or somehow different than if they took it from your home. They also would rather blame the government or some other country for our economic problems instead of talking a look in the mirror at the real problem.

[The Rabbi]

The concept isn’t that poverty causes crime. As the economy gets worse crime will rise and that’s not a concept it’s a fact. As someone else pointed out there are a lot of criminals that would work if they could. But when people start losing their homes or can’t feed their family; they will steal, burglarize houses, sell drugs, or just about anything else.

Dave, that's nonsense. People who commit crimes are overwhelmingly single (Black) men in their teens and 20s who are not married and living at home. The idea that they are stealing to support their families is a myth. They might steal or commit other crimes because they can't find an entry level job and are bored. But that's another issue.

[fury2neon]

Around the world the poorest communities have the lowest crime rates. Not because poor people don't commit crimes but because in the poorest communities the punishments for minor crimes are extreme.

If you are going to be beaten with a cane rod for painting graffiti on a wall then you are probably going to think twice about it.

Where as here if you rob someone, you get a place to stay with meals and in most jails TV, workout rooms, etc... That is much easier than having your hand amputated in the public square.

[The Rabbi]

Right, Fury.

The decision to engage in crime rests on 2 things:

1) How likely is it the perpetrator will get caught?

2) If he does get caught, how severe will the punishment be?

Under a system where police are over-burdened investigating murders and rapes then the answer to 1) is not very.

Under a system where prisons are over-crowded so many petty crimes are given time served then the answer to 2) is not very.

So this is why we have much more crime.

[DaveTN]

Dave, that's nonsense.

I can’t even guess how many people I have arrested. But I can assure you they weren’t all single, 20 something, black males living with their moms.

[The Rabbi]

I can’t even guess how many people I have arrested. But I can assure you they weren’t all single, 20 something, black males living with their moms.

The plural of anecdote is not data.

[Guest Len]

Very interesting idea. I need to think on this some more...

As to the "human nature" element of violence, I belive agresive/violent tendancies are ire intertwined and inseprable to our drive to advance ourselves. Almost all violence even the crimes of pasion stem from one thing you want what you see as yours. For example food, teritory, property, money, stature are all thing peopple want and troughout history people have either found way to acheive these or take them from those who have then those who acheived theise things develooped ways to keep them and you begin escalation of force. Everyone want the same thing and some will always get them by the sweat of their brow while others will always attempt to take what they can. If this fundumental drive was removed humanity would stagnate and die as it is we are the only thing keeping ourselves in check. The best you can ever do is not be a victim becouse regardless of whats outside your window you still live in the jungle.

Crytes

[Guest Len]

You have undermined your own argument by admitting that many (the majority) of poor people do not commit murder, or other felonious acts.

No, I have not. Some criminals commit crimes due to economic circumstances. Not one word of what I wrote undermines that. Not all crime is economically motivated, not all poor people commit crimes. I see no contradiction or erosion.

[Guest Len]

The concept isn’t that poverty causes crime. As the economy gets worse crime will rise and that’s not a concept it’s a fact.

Thank you.

[Guest Len]

In my opinion this is an over-simplification of a complex social and economic issue. Many crimes are -as you yourself stated- "crimes of passion" where I doubt a reasoned analysis of the chances of getting caught and punished come into play. And, of course, important social and economic issues that may influence someone to consider committing crime, would vastly out-weigh concerns of length of punishment, etc.

Right, Fury.

The decision to engage in crime rests on 2 things:

1) How likely is it the perpetrator will get caught?

2) If he does get caught, how severe will the punishment be?

Under a system where police are over-burdened investigating murders and rapes then the answer to 1) is not very.

Under a system where prisons are over-crowded so many petty crimes are given time served then the answer to 2) is not very.

So this is why we have much more crime.