Three truly valid posts. And though they contradict each other somewhat in their intent and certainly in the opinions of their sources, I think grouping them together vividly points out that there are diverse approaches, mentalities, and viable solutions to consider. All these guys make sense. And all of them cumulatively provide an easy way to see that this is more than an argument about logic. Or emotion. Or, certainly, right and wrong. Here we have a clear demonstration of right minded guys presenting right minded opinions and we can see there is no one uncontestable solution. Clearly, to me, Tampa makes the most obvious and easily accepted statement. Rigel's point about legalizing drugs is also an obvious solution to the vast majority of street crime. However I really do not quite see how this idea needs to be associated with the proliferation of guns. Two separate issues. However, it would seem to make sense that if the drug related crimes (those committed for the purpose of obtaining money to buy for a "need") were virtually eliminated (as would happen), then even if guns were easily available to everyone, the desire, or perceived need to carry one would decrease big time. We all, I would assume, have to agree it would be vastly more unlikely to be mugged on the street if drugs were easily and legally obtained by those that are most likely to rob you as you walked through Central Park (or anywhere else now a virtual hunting ground for junkie/predators). So without this fear, who would really want to, or feel a need to carry a heavy inconvenience around with them? My little cell phone seems too big too often. Just another lump in my pocket. Nowhere the size or weight of what we would all consider an effective weapon. Wish I didn't need to carry keys as well. Who wants more baggage to lug around all the time? Daniel's point about deterrence? Sure, if armed robbery were not so severely punished, then bank robbery would seem a lot more attractive than trying to grind out quarters of points in the e-minis. Like Willie Sutton said, he robbed banks because "that's where the money is". But deterrence, IMHO is not a major factor in crimes that are not premeditated. Domestic disturbances that result in gunshots, a major part of gun-related deaths and injuries , would unlikely be affected by more or less "deterrence". Crimes of passion like that just happen. And if guns were even more prevalent, they would just happen even more frequently. No one shoots their wife (or such) in a rage after carefully considering the consequences. At least I wouldn't think so. So I agree that deterrence is essential to helping to prevent crime overall, but like Rigel's points about legalized drugs and gun accessibility, I think that here again we have issues that don't necessarily go together. Or validate each other. And lastly, Daniel's closing line.....well, I think we ALL would be in our "right minds" if we had a realistic way to "attempt" to "solve" (I believe Dan meant to say "prevent"...) all crime. Of course Daniels points are always well thought out, so maybe the word he used is correct in his version of the language. Or maybe he has lost his ability to express himself as well as he used to since he has moved back "down under". If I were upside down 24/7, I would get confused too. Good posts, all of them. But according to the irrefutable logic of ME...., legalizing drugs, eliminating guns and imposing stricter "deterrence" for violent crimes would all combine to make our society safer. But as we all agree, it is impossible to get us to all agree The deterrence issue, unfortunately in too many cases, is perverted by the "system". My sister in law was arrested recently for DUI. An inexcusable crime for sure. But had she not been able to afford good legal counsel, her possible sentencing could have been worse than that of the perpetrators of so many violent, and even pre-meditated crimes. Our revolving door jail sentences are a joke. Our justice system can be so perverse. A woman in NY intentionally mows down in anger a crowd of people with her SUV. But because of who she is and how much money she has, she gets off easier than my sister in law, who was admittedly too drunk to drive, but had pulled over on her own knowing it. And was arrested after turning off the motor and falling asleep. No intent to hurt anyone. Winona Ryder will do no jail time (and I think that's ok...she is obviously a head case and not a hardened criminal). But the same crime is committed by someone else, someone poor and black or hispanic from the inner city....well, I doubt the same "deterrence" (punishment) would be imposed. Justice will always be subjected to the law. Two separate and unrelated concepts. Unfortunately. Daniel, I have a rough Sunday upon me in FFL. Hope you do too! Peace, Rs7
I've got to disagree with you RS. I don't think that the idea that if criminals knew people were armed they would just sneak up behind you and shoot you in the head is valid. The reason these guys are crooks is because they are looking for "easy pickins". If they knew they were going to have to fire that puppy and end up facing their conscience and probably life in prison they probably wouldn't even consider a holdup. Too dangerous. Another thing that popped out at me was the idea that "driving drunk is inexcusable". ?? That's a strong word if you think about it. Inexscusable. I always imagined that just about anything was excusable, even robbery for instance, if the perpetrator admits they did wrong and made an effort to make things right. Driving drunk is inexcusable? I don't think so. When I was a kid cars didn't even come with seatbelts. When I was 21 me and about 1000 other people I was aquainted with drove drunk all the time. No one ever got hurt from the drunk driving or lack of seatbelts. You heard about it from time to time but in the scheme of things it was rare. As far as I'm concerned, if you get in a car it's prudent to wear your seatbelt, and if your tipsy you ought to be real careful and slow it down. I'm not trying to be a smart aleck but IMO things have gotten a little wierd in this country over the last 30 years. When my sister got stopped by the cops in 1972 with her friends and about 10 open bottles in the car the police scolded them and made them put the beer in the cops trunk and let them go. Now you see people on "Cops" being arrested and hauled off to jail like animals. Wierd. And you can get a $100 ticket for not wearing your seatbelt. These ideas work there way in bit-by-bit over time so that they don't appear as ridiculous as they really are. On the other hand, things that ARE really bad like adultery, divorce, dishonesty, homosexuality, stealing, etc., are accepted as "OK". We've gotten our social priorities screwed up somehow. The idea of psychological displacement comes to mind again.
no, i meant to use "solve" . and i put it in inverted commas because the previous poster i was replying to used it. so, nope, haven't gone around the bend just yet. (sheesh, the nerve, thinking you pull one over on me like that!) as for deterrence. as i've said before, i've known quite a few career jailbirds. one thing they all shared in common was a complete disregard for the legal consequances of their actions. i am gonna have to go and visit some prisons now, and talk to some more inmates to get a better idea of their views on being in prison. i would be willing to wager that most of the dont' consider being in jail that big a deal. think about it from a risk/reward perspective. "i'll commit this crime. if i get away with it, swell. if not, oh well, few months in the pen aint' that big a deal." you also seem to be willing to excuse "crimes of passion". i'm not. a man kills another because he wants some money. a man kills his wife cos she cheated on him. big deal. just as bad in my opinion. man kicks in car door cos he's drunk. man kicks in car door cos his girlfriend dropped him. big deal. no leniency in my books. BRING ON THE DEATH PENALTY!!!! MUHAHAHAHA!!! (j/k ) you see, i simply CANNOT accept that it is THAT difficult to avoid committing crimes! that is what gets to me. and crap like "oh, poor murderer, he grew up in a broken home. he was underprivliged. boo hoo hoo". that's just bullshit. rehabilitation for such people is a waste of freakin time. either death or HARSH jail is the only to scare these idiots from pulling that shit. if you're gonna send someone to jail the experience needs to be SO bad, being in jail needs to be SO undesirable that the person would rather die than go throught that shit again. that's rehab in my books! hey, worked for me as a kid. i once done something really "bad" at home, after a swift blood spilling crack in the face from my old man you can bet your ass i never tried that stunt again. same principle. sure, it means we all have to toe the line a bit more than we might be comfortable doing, but in time it just becomes habit. and that's the point. it is SO easy to avoid violent crime and murder!!!
I am not sure what you disagree with me about as far as the first thing is concerned. I think that we DO agree that there is too much crime related to drugs. And desperate people will take desperate measures. But as I said, I don't see how the legalization of drugs and an increase in the freedom to carry guns really have much to do with each other. Not sure I understand your point. As far as DUI being inexcusable, well, I too have been guilty of doing the same things you describe. At about the same time....so yeah, societies' outlooks change. Luckily for me, I was never caught. But even if "inexcusable" is too strong a word for you, I hope you agree that this is an issue that really should be taken seriously. My son is 17, my step kids are 19 and 21. They accept "designated drivers" as a part of life. We never had that concept (or the seatbelts). So this is a good thing. This is a change of attitude that can only have beneficial results overall. Certainly there is no downside to having fewer intoxicated drivers on the roads. Nor is there a downside to having seatbelts become a habit...legal enforcement of seatbelt laws? I don't know if that's a violation of freedom; if it's too much of an inconvenience to ask of people for their own protection. But the reality is, if less people are killed or injured because they were wearing seat belts, it pays off to all of us in that it decreases, or helps avoid increases, in all of our auto insurance costs. This is just a plain economic advantage if nothing else. Also, like the kids today having a designated driver as part of their plans, there is no downside. And I know I for one feel better knowing my kids are strapped in because it's so ingrained in them. I lost control of my car once and was wearing a seat belt. I know it locked me into position and if it didn't make a difference ultimately in what happened, I still know for sure that I never lost my grip on the steering wheel. And my feet stayed on the pedals. This couldn't have worked against me in any circumstances. I have always worn a seatbelt since. Feels uncomfortable not to have it on. I never wore a helmet on a motorcycle until it became the law. Then once I got used to it, it felt uncomfortable to not wear one. When they repealed the helmet law in Colorado and I was living there and had a bike, I found myself voluntarily wearing the helmet that I had resented so much when I first was forced to wear it. Again, no downside. And yeah, I really objected to the helmet law at first. And when it was repealed I thought that was giving me back a freedom that had been taken from me. But like the seatbelts, helmets save lives. And brain injuries. And that saves us all money on insurance. As do less accidents caused by alchohol. Safety just makes sense. For so many reasons. I hope you don't disagree. As for the other stuff you think is more serious...divorce, homosexuality, etc.....well I disagree completely. I don't think you can or should ever legislate morality. Never worked, never will. Not in a free society. Look how successful prohibition was. And besides, who are the victims of these "crimes"? And who ever said "dishonesty" or "stealing" were OK? What are you talking about??? Peace, rs7
No Dan....I am not willing to "excuse" this stuff. Nor do I think they shouldn't be severely punished. My point was only that I doubt that the consequences of these crimes are much of a deterrence. If someone is going to commit a pre-meditated crime, they may and hopefully do take into consideration the "risk/reward" like you say. And this works as a deterrent. But in a "crime of passion", I don't know how many perpetrators actually stop and take the time to consider the price they will have to pay. Not saying at all that these crimes are excusable. Just that deterrence is not a big factor. The guy that kills his wife in a jealous rage is not a career criminal. He is not likely to be a repeat offender. This doesn't mean they should not be subjected to the penalties. They should be. But are the penalties really deterrents in these cases? Peace Bro, Rs7
harsh consequances wouldn't be as much of a deterrent, no. but they still would be a little. especially as time goes by and the new rules of the game become part of accepted reality. think about for a sec. we all get made sometimes, but we often hold back from doing anything too drastic about it, right? (or is it just me?) so, in the back of our minds, there still is SOME understanding of consequance. surely you aren't suggesting that a "passion" inspired response automatically leads to one completely ignoring consequances. in any case, whether or not harsher penalties do act as a deterrent for crimes of passions becomes immaterial. so let's institute them asap!
"I don't see how the legalization of drugs and an increase in the freedom to carry guns really have much to do with each other" IMO they would each make our society more peaceful. "I never wore a helmet on a motorcycle until it became the law." When they repealed the law here I quit wearing mine. Nothing finer than putting on a pair of cool shades and hiting the road and feeling the wind in your hair. I agree it is prudent to wear one but darn, it just isn't as much fun. Fun must count for something? Life's dangerous. It kills everybody. We might as well have a little fun while we're here. "I don't think you can or should ever legislate morality." No. Can't do that. Wasn't talking about laws. If a person considers the law as the ultimate authority on good and evil then I suppose it would "work" for them. If a law says somethings OK it doesn't necessarily make it right. If the law says something is not OK then it doesn't necessarily make it wrong. There are higher things than laws. Example: Five men and one woman stranded on a desert island vote on and pass a law that says it's OK to rape the woman whenever they want to. It would be legal but it would be wrong. No. Can't legislate morality. And laws should not be taken as the highest authority or conforming to societies laws the measure of goodness.
daniel_m - It's not "legislative" deterance that reduces crime - it's "executive" deterance (i.e., the enforcement of the legislation - prosecution, lockup, swift execution (for certain crimes in certain states), etc.) There are thousands of legislative deterances on the books that aren't aggressively enforced. Having a law on the books doesn't stop a single crime. It's knowing that the law is going to be enforced and you'll pay the consequences for breaking the law (not just get a slap on the wrist or a revolving door judge) that deters crime. We don't so much need more laws as much as we need the current ones enforced more aggressively.