When more guns = LESS safety

[AMonger]

First, for my bonafides:
Staunch libertarian, small L;
Advocate of Natural Rights, that the Bill of Rights is a recognition of human rights due all people everywhere, and that the people in, forex, North Korea & China don't enjoy them isn't because they're not entitled to them but rather their human rights are trampled by evil men;
Believer in Vermont-carry and stand-your-ground laws.

Ok...
We hear talk about how, even if carrying arms is a good idea in general, in some places, it wouldn't work. Forex, Chicago, East St.Louis, Washington DC, Detroit, Newark, etc., the real urban hellholes. It might work for Joe Sixpack if he takes the wrong exit off the interstate and wings up there, but there would be more complications. Gun deterrence is more about the threat of bullets flying; if bullets actually have to fly, we're less safe, at least in the short term.
So what makes the situation this way? I think we'd all agree that we have far too many criminals running the street, especially the violent sort. If we could lock them up for an appropriate term, like 30 years for rape or armed robbery, of which every day is served, not 30=10 to 15, we'd all be much safer and society would benefit in many ways. Instead, we have non-violent offenders taking up prison space, making us release violent offenders who shouldn't be on the streets. There are more aspects to this that we could cover if we chose, but that's the most relevant.
So I said all that to set up my question: Have liberal policies on crime and punishment painted us into a corner so that the liberals' worst nightmare becomes true by allowing inner city residents to exercise their gun rights? I mean, anti-gunners always predict that blood will flow in the streets if Milwaukeeans carry guns, or Pensacolans, or Omahans, etc., and they're always wrong, as we knew they would be. But might it be true in Detroit or Dolton or DC or Riverdale or Gary? Might the fact that violent criminals run those streets in the numbers they do at least temporarily reverse things there? Might those areas become less safe until we force the state to lock up violent criminals and leave them there until they're too old to effectively act on their violent impulses?

tl;dr: I just wonder if lax treatment of violent criminals in some areas hasn't taken us past the point where what is true in Dubuque--that more guns in the hands of law-abiding people equals less crime--continues to be true in Dolton or at 35th & Shields. I mean, we know that more gunplay = less safety, and you're certainly more likely to have to fire a shot or two or ten in East St. Louis than Topeka.

 

[Monty]

Quinns First Law of Liberalism= "Liberalism always generates the exact opposite of it's stated intent"

Conservative Talk Radio From Pittsburgh

 

[LDB]

No one can know for certain what might happen. Just have to count on the police doing their usual good work and the good guys triumphing in the long run.

 

[EASYTRADER]

What's wrong with blood in the streets?

Some people need killing. If the poo lice refuse to do it then the privite citizen should. If all private citicens carried we wouldn't even need police.

DB would be shot and killed early in life eliminating criminals and the need for prisons to begin with.

There is a reason the OT called for so many crimes as havin a death penalty, that reason is civil societies can only exhist where the DBs are eliminated. The only permanate solution to DBism is death.

This coddling of the criminal elements is a modern phenomenon, prior to the last 150 to 200 years police forces and "prisons" didn't even exist. People held in "dungeons" were not usually criminals but political prisoners. Felons when cuaght were hung, petty crimes were handled through public humiliation, ie, stocks or whiping post.

The real reason crime is tolerated is because the governemnt uses crime as n excuse to increase its power. In fact every day news laws and regulations are passed to create more 'crime' which the governemnt then can protect us from, its a total scam.

Having said that 75% of all violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, if those offenders were killed by their victims on the 1rst attempt there would be a 75% drop in violent crime overnight,followed by a total drop in violent crime, as felons are killed off.

The best way to end 'crime' is to make horse thievry a death penalty offense again, pass a law where evryone carries a gun and prosecute 'victims' for NOT defending themselves.

The quicker all the a holes are killed off the quicker the rest of us can live ours lives in peace.

 

[LDB]

With absolutely incontestable proof, such as DNA results confirmed by 3 independent labs, any crime involving use of a weapon should be a capital offense with no alternative sentence option. Anyone born outside the U.S. convicted of a crime should be expelled with notice given that returning to the U.S. after conviction is a capital crime.

Crime will never be eliminated but it can be significantly curtailed by making consequences so severe that sane people won't risk the consequences by committing the acts. That's harsh though, kind of like using a red pen to grade papers. It might hurt someone's feelings. Our liberal friends wouldn't be able to live with themselves if they let something awful like that happen.

 

[jimby82]

What's wrong with blood in the streets?

Some people need killing.

DB would be shot and killed early in life

Wow, just wow.

 

[RETIDEPXE]

Read this about gun control; https://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/

 

[Crazynuff]

With absolutely incontestable proof, such as DNA results confirmed by 3 independent labs, any crime involving use of a weapon should be a capital offense with no alternative sentence option. Anyone born outside the U.S. convicted of a crime should be expelled with notice given that returning to the U.S. after conviction is a capital crime.

Crime will never be eliminated but it can be significantly curtailed by making consequences so severe that sane people won't risk the consequences by committing the acts. That's harsh though, kind of like using a red pen to grade papers. It might hurt someone's feelings. Our liberal friends wouldn't be able to live with themselves if they let something awful like that happen.

Just how many gun crimes would leave DNA evidence ? If a criminal wears gloves while using a stolen handgun then disposes of the weapon there would be no DNA evidence .

 

[Monty]

What is needed, is MORAL training, starting at a young age.

Not teaching certain things simply are not accepted, in a society, teaches that there are no guardrails, no limits.

If it has not taught to be wrong, then it must be ok.

Enter religion here. And if you are not a religious person, then at least teach the tenants of the 10 Commandments to your children simply as guide to coexisting in a moral society.

 

[layoutshooter]

Guns are tools. They are neither good or bad. They are objects, incapable of acting on their own, regardless of the purpose. Good people can and do use guns in a positive manner. Bad people use them to do bad.

Lack of discipline, lack of moral teaching, absent parents and warehousing of children all contribute.

NO one wants bullets flying all over the place. There is one glaring face that cannot be ignored. There is NO possible way for the police to insure every individuals safety 100% of the time. It is, as all things are, a personal responsibility. I choose to carry a gun to assist me in that duty. It is a personal choice. One can choose not to protect themselves in that manner or not to protect themselves at all. NO one has the right to decide FOR me how I will defend my family, property or self.

 

[LDB]

Just how many gun crimes would leave DNA evidence ? If a criminal wears gloves while using a stolen handgun then disposes of the weapon there would be no DNA evidence .

Many, if not most, criminals are somewhat dim. There are other sources of DNA than the hands. There are other forms of evidence as well. The point is to make consequences so extremely harsh that all but the most insane would never risk the activity because they wouldn't risk facing the consequence.

 

[LDB]

What is needed, is MORAL training, starting at a young age.

Not teaching certain things simply are not accepted, in a society, teaches that there are no guardrails, no limits.

If it has not taught to be wrong, then it must be ok.

Enter religion here. And if you are not a religious person, then at least teach the tenants of the 10 Commandments to your children simply as guide to coexisting in a moral society.

Well said. It would be interesting to know what percentage of Columbine and others came from a family that was religious and always attended worship services. It would probably be telling.

 

[Monty]

From a transcript of the Mike Church show on SirusXm .....

As Russell Kirk wrote in his great book, which I suggest all of you should read, The Roots of American Order, the first chapter is all about two words we have in our society today: law and order. What comes first, law or order? Kirk argues that order comes before law. If you don’t have a moral order that’s going to obey the laws, you can pass all the laws you want. What we’re basically talking about then is the morality of the people and of the citizens that live under the laws. If you’re a moral person and you believe that shooting someone in the head is an evil deed that’s going to send you straight to purgatory or to hell and you don’t do it, your morality has acted upon your conscience, not the law.

If We're Going to Have Mental Health Test for Gun Owners... Why Not For Fat People? | Mike Church

 

[layoutshooter]

Gun ownership and defense of self and property are RIGHTS. One does not have to be 'tested' to avail themselves of a right. IF we are going to start that I would suggest that we start with voting. EVERYONE who is going to vote should have to pass a written exam not only on the Constitution and how it works but each person must answer questions on ALL issues to insure that they KNOW what they are voting for. It is rather obvious that most don't.

 

[Monty]

It is rather obvious that most don't.

Amen brother.

 

[AMonger]

And if you are not a religious person, then at least teach the tenants of the 10 Commandments to your children simply as guide to coexisting in a moral society.

Tenets.
Other than that, you are correct. We didn't have the problems we have today when society was composed largely of Christians and people who at least conformed to Christian morals for just the reason you state. Had that continued, 1/3 of adults wouldn't have herpes; the incidence of AIDS would be a fraction of what it is; the incidence of out-of-wedlock births would be a fraction of what they are, as would the rate of poverty and those on public assistance; and a whole lot of other social ills would be fractions of what they are.
We have macro-decay because people stopped believing that, even if they don't subscribe to Christianity, there was value in the moral structure that goes with it. They rejected Christ, so they eventually rejected morals, too. iow, the social and cultural fabric disintegrated, and unfortunately, the rot spread to the point where 79% of those self-identifying as Christians now engage in pre-martial sex, a rate higher than this of other religions. But maybe that's roughly the percentage of self-professed Christians who aren't really Christians, give or take.
Where Christianity (and its moral structure) goes, civilization follows; where it recedes, decay moves in like an abscess until society collapses.
Separating GOD SAID from the "Thou shalt not" part of the "Thou shalt nots" leads to the embracing of those acts, and society bears the consequences. Decay is only staved off as long as the moral structure is valued. When that goes, and it eventually does, the end result is school and mall shootings. Or maybe it gets even worse; will we see cannibalism soon?

 

[Rocketman]

Tenets.
Other than that, you are correct. We didn't have the problems we have today when society was composed largely of Christians and people who at least conformed to Christian morals for just the reason you state. Had that continued, 1/3 of adults wouldn't have herpes; the incidence of AIDS would be a fraction of what it is; the incidence of out-of-wedlock births would be a fraction of what they are, as would the rate of poverty and those on public assistance; and a while lot of other social ills would be fractions of what they are. We have macro-decay because people stopped believing that, even if they don't subscribe to Christianity, they saw the rejection of the concomitant moral structure as part and parcel of not being Christian. Iow, the social and cultural fabric disintegrated, and unfortunately, the rot spread to the point where 79% of those self-identifying as Christians now engage in pre-martial sex. But maybe that's roughly the percentage of self-professed Christians who aren't really Christians, give or take.
Where Christianity (and its moral structure) goes, civilization follows; where it recedes, decay moves in like an abscess until society collapses.
Rejecting the "Thou shalt not" part of the "Thou shalt nots" leads to the embracing of those acts, and society bears the consequences. Decay is only staved off as long as the moral structure is valued. When that goes, and it eventually will, the end result is school and mall shootings. Or maybe it gets even worse; will we see cannibalism soon?

FIFY :thumbup:

 

[Mdbtyhtr]

Society and the cohesiveness of a society is based on Judeo-Christian values and the fear of the ultimate penalty, that of not going to Heaven should you transgress society without repentance or remorse. The fallacy of this position is it has no value in a Godless society. There has always been crime proportional to the population, more people equals more crime. The information age just makes us more aware of crime. Television shows like Gangsters, that immortalized street hoods as a positive example for youth with no alternative example is a failing of society. Certain behaviors are acceptable in some communities and abhorred in others. Unfortunately, the liberal response to crime identifies the criminals as the victims and the victims remain unaddressed in the formula. Further, the lack of response to a first offender results in a mixed message to the offender, that of it just doesn't matter and there is no penalty, and therefore no accountability for actions against society. The real issue is that Pre-Trial release methodologies, supported by the federal government with your tax dollars in the form of grants to the states to promote the further intrusion of the federal government's influence on the states, fails to address causal factors of crime in the first place. They are the lack of a complete family unit, morals taught at home and in school, education as a standard in the home, citizenship and most importantly, the removing of religious values from the home, schools and society. This secularization of society has absolutely contributed significantly to our downfall. To address this issue, we must overhaul or societal mentality.

 

[layoutshooter]

What it all boils down to is getting back to the basics. Criminals commit crimes and SHOULD be treated as criminals. Innocent people do NOT commit crimes and should NOT be treated by criminals by an illegal restriction of their rights.

In other words, do the crime, do the time. Don't do the crime you may do as you like, own what you like and no one will bother you, other than criminals, unless you CHOOSE to become one.

 

[LDB]

You are asking for WAY too much common sense out of people, including some of our own.