Political Crossfire Forums

[MindlessSheep]

This is a question that my brother and I argue back and forth over quite a bit. He's against gun control and owns quite a few hand guns, I'm not a big fan of guns. So here is my question. Is it possible to reduce the murders committed in the US without necessarily hinder the "right to bare arms"? I don't see a way to do it, but maybe I'm not thinking outside of the box enough.

[Demonic Spoon]

Edit: double post.

[Demonic Spoon]

Switzerland has an ASTOUNDINGLY low crime rate..I believe in 2002, the murder rate was 1.4 per 100,000 people. Switzerland also is known for it's complete lack of an army. Pretty much every house in that nation has an assault rifle. Hunting is a national sport. To put it simply, that country is armed to the teeth.

I think our crime rate is due to two factors.

1) Dumbasses. While dumbasses exist everywhere, American dumbasses tend to be more violent.

2) Gun control. It makes it difficult for an honest, law-abiding citizen to arm themselves, but it is still piss-easy for a criminal to get hold of a gun, because where an honest citizen will not go through all the trouble to get a gun, a criminal will. This is not to mention the black market which is certainly a factor.


When a criminal thinks there's a good chance of their victim being armed, they will not go through. After all, they're looking for easy, low-risk benefit. Fighting an armed opponent is neither.



While I think lowering gun control could go a long way to curbing crime, it wont really be significantly lower until people start pulling their heads out of their asses.


Interesting first post. Welcome to PCF. :-D

[thundertaker]

Demonic Spoon wrote: Switzerland has an ASTOUNDINGLY low crime rate..I believe in 2002, the murder rate was 1.4 per 100,000 people. Switzerland also is known for it's complete lack of an army.

Switzerland does have an army (mostly conscripts), and an airforce. It even has a merchant navy.........

[Demonic Spoon]

Quote:
Switzerland does have an army (mostly conscripts), and an airforce. It even has a merchant navy.........



eh. It's more of a militia.

[Blinky]

Demonic Spoon wrote: Switzerland has an ASTOUNDINGLY low crime rate..I believe in 2002, the murder rate was 1.4 per 100,000 people. Switzerland also is known for it's complete lack of an army. Pretty much every house in that nation has an assault rifle. Hunting is a national sport. To put it simply, that country is armed to the teeth.

I think our crime rate is due to two factors.

1) Dumbasses. While dumbasses exist everywhere, American dumbasses tend to be more violent.

2) Gun control. It makes it difficult for an honest, law-abiding citizen to arm themselves, but it is still piss-easy for a criminal to get hold of a gun, because where an honest citizen will not go through all the trouble to get a gun, a criminal will. This is not to mention the black market which is certainly a factor.


Eh?
You're putting America's crime rate down to American's being "violent dumbasses", and the fact that there is a waiting peroid of a couple of days before you can get a gun from a shop?
How do you explain the fact that you are less likely to be murdered/raped/assualted in nations (like Britain) where there is much tighter gun control?



Demonic Spoon wrote: When a criminal thinks there's a good chance of their victim being armed, they will not go through. After all, they're looking for easy, low-risk benefit. Fighting an armed opponent is neither.

But criminals often don't know if someone is armed or not until after they initiate their crime, if it turns out their victim is armed, doesn't it encourage the criminal to use deadly force in order to get what they want and/or not get killed themselves?

Posters here always bang on about the millions of defensive gun uses that occur every year. So obviously criminals, on millions of occassions anually, get it wrong and target an armed civilian.

I think you'll find you have far more shoot first, ask questions later crimes in the US than in countries where every third person isn't a gun owner. That way it isn't fighting anm armed opponent. Its incapacitating a victim, and getting what you want.

[MichaelRS]

I think the removal of certain government policies, like drug prohibition for example, would help reduce murder rates without infringing on the right to bare arms.

[perdidochas]

MindlessSheep wrote: This is a question that my brother and I argue back and forth over quite a bit. He's against gun control and owns quite a few hand guns, I'm not a big fan of guns. So here is my question. Is it possible to reduce the murders committed in the US without necessarily hinder the "right to bare arms"? I don't see a way to do it, but maybe I'm not thinking outside of the box enough.

Well, it's been done for the last ten years or so. The CDC (which is an anti-gun organization) has concluded that it can find no evidence that gun control works (or doesnt' work).

[Sid]

Demonic Spoon wrote: Switzerland has an ASTOUNDINGLY low crime rate..I believe in 2002, the murder rate was 1.4 per 100,000 people. Switzerland also is known for it's complete lack of an army. Pretty much every house in that nation has an assault rifle. Hunting is a national sport. To put it simply, that country is armed to the teeth.

I think our crime rate is due to two factors.

1) Dumbasses. While dumbasses exist everywhere, American dumbasses tend to be more violent.

2) Gun control. It makes it difficult for an honest, law-abiding citizen to arm themselves, but it is still piss-easy for a criminal to get hold of a gun, because where an honest citizen will not go through all the trouble to get a gun, a criminal will. This is not to mention the black market which is certainly a factor.

One thing about switzerland is it supports the use of guns, giving every male their rifle when they retire from the army (officers are issued their pistols). Only 2% of Swiss houses are not armed, and the chances of finding the 1 in 50 houses that isn't armed is low, making crime not particularly attractive. Another interesting statistic like this is when the town of Kennesaw Georgia passed a law requiring the head of any household to own at least one gun, burglary dropped by roughly 89% and when florida passed the concealed carry law, crime dropped 36%.

These statistics all point to one basic fact, if a criminal thinks his victem might be armed, he will be less likely to attack them.

(Most of these statistics I got out of books when doing a research paper, so links are exactly possible, if you want the name of the book I can still look it up, I have the citations.)

[Blinky]

perdidochas wrote: MindlessSheep wrote: This is a question that my brother and I argue back and forth over quite a bit. He's against gun control and owns quite a few hand guns, I'm not a big fan of guns. So here is my question. Is it possible to reduce the murders committed in the US without necessarily hinder the "right to bare arms"? I don't see a way to do it, but maybe I'm not thinking outside of the box enough.

Well, it's been done for the last ten years or so. The CDC (which is an anti-gun organization) has concluded that it can find no evidence that gun control works (or doesnt' work).

Is that to say that they've found nothing?

[Blinky]

Sid wrote: Demonic Spoon wrote: Switzerland has an ASTOUNDINGLY low crime rate..I believe in 2002, the murder rate was 1.4 per 100,000 people. Switzerland also is known for it's complete lack of an army. Pretty much every house in that nation has an assault rifle. Hunting is a national sport. To put it simply, that country is armed to the teeth.

I think our crime rate is due to two factors.

1) Dumbasses. While dumbasses exist everywhere, American dumbasses tend to be more violent.

2) Gun control. It makes it difficult for an honest, law-abiding citizen to arm themselves, but it is still piss-easy for a criminal to get hold of a gun, because where an honest citizen will not go through all the trouble to get a gun, a criminal will. This is not to mention the black market which is certainly a factor.

One thing about switzerland is it supports the use of guns, giving every male their rifle when they retire from the army (officers are issued their pistols). Only 2% of Swiss houses are not armed, and the chances of finding the 1 in 50 houses that isn't armed is low, making crime not particularly attractive. Another interesting statistic like this is when the town of Kennesaw Georgia passed a law requiring the head of any household to own at least one gun, burglary dropped by roughly 89% and when florida passed the concealed carry law, crime dropped 36%.

These statistics all point to one basic fact, if a criminal thinks his victem might be armed, he will be less likely to attack them.

(Most of these statistics I got out of books when doing a research paper, so links are exactly possible, if you want the name of the book I can still look it up, I have the citations.)

So, following your line of argument, if 100% of American's were armed, there would be no crimes committed?
I think that far more murders, because they would be a necessary precursor for any and all crimes - including for the guy who just wants your wallet so he can score his next hit. He would be forced to kill you in order to get your wallet, or risk being killed himself.

Americans on this forum seem to believe that band-aid solutions to crime prevention (like arming everybody) will work.
If you are serious about it, you have to first address socio-economic issues. Switzerland is an incredibly wealthy country with high standards of living and good social services programs. That is a more likely explanation for their lack of crime.

[Sid]

Blinky wrote: Sid wrote: Demonic Spoon wrote: Switzerland has an ASTOUNDINGLY low crime rate..I believe in 2002, the murder rate was 1.4 per 100,000 people. Switzerland also is known for it's complete lack of an army. Pretty much every house in that nation has an assault rifle. Hunting is a national sport. To put it simply, that country is armed to the teeth.

I think our crime rate is due to two factors.

1) Dumbasses. While dumbasses exist everywhere, American dumbasses tend to be more violent.

2) Gun control. It makes it difficult for an honest, law-abiding citizen to arm themselves, but it is still piss-easy for a criminal to get hold of a gun, because where an honest citizen will not go through all the trouble to get a gun, a criminal will. This is not to mention the black market which is certainly a factor.

One thing about switzerland is it supports the use of guns, giving every male their rifle when they retire from the army (officers are issued their pistols). Only 2% of Swiss houses are not armed, and the chances of finding the 1 in 50 houses that isn't armed is low, making crime not particularly attractive. Another interesting statistic like this is when the town of Kennesaw Georgia passed a law requiring the head of any household to own at least one gun, burglary dropped by roughly 89% and when florida passed the concealed carry law, crime dropped 36%.

These statistics all point to one basic fact, if a criminal thinks his victem might be armed, he will be less likely to attack them.

(Most of these statistics I got out of books when doing a research paper, so links are exactly possible, if you want the name of the book I can still look it up, I have the citations.)

So, following your line of argument, if 100% of American's were armed, there would be no crimes committed?
I think that far more murders, because they would be a necessary precursor for any and all crimes - including for the guy who just wants your wallet so he can score his next hit. He would be forced to kill you in order to get your wallet, or risk being killed himself.

Americans on this forum seem to believe that band-aid solutions to crime prevention (like arming everybody) will work.
If you are serious about it, you have to first address socio-economic issues. Switzerland is an incredibly wealthy country with high standards of living and good social services programs. That is a more likely explanation for their lack of crime.

I honestly don't know 'bout Switzerland's economy, so I can't argue, but I can point you to issues within the US, such as Florida, Kennesaw, and Washington DC, the city with some of the most strict gun laws in the nation, is not only the political capital, but the murder capital.

[Blinky]

Sid wrote: Blinky wrote: Sid wrote: Demonic Spoon wrote: Switzerland has an ASTOUNDINGLY low crime rate..I believe in 2002, the murder rate was 1.4 per 100,000 people. Switzerland also is known for it's complete lack of an army. Pretty much every house in that nation has an assault rifle. Hunting is a national sport. To put it simply, that country is armed to the teeth.

I think our crime rate is due to two factors.

1) Dumbasses. While dumbasses exist everywhere, American dumbasses tend to be more violent.

2) Gun control. It makes it difficult for an honest, law-abiding citizen to arm themselves, but it is still piss-easy for a criminal to get hold of a gun, because where an honest citizen will not go through all the trouble to get a gun, a criminal will. This is not to mention the black market which is certainly a factor.

One thing about switzerland is it supports the use of guns, giving every male their rifle when they retire from the army (officers are issued their pistols). Only 2% of Swiss houses are not armed, and the chances of finding the 1 in 50 houses that isn't armed is low, making crime not particularly attractive. Another interesting statistic like this is when the town of Kennesaw Georgia passed a law requiring the head of any household to own at least one gun, burglary dropped by roughly 89% and when florida passed the concealed carry law, crime dropped 36%.

These statistics all point to one basic fact, if a criminal thinks his victem might be armed, he will be less likely to attack them.

(Most of these statistics I got out of books when doing a research paper, so links are exactly possible, if you want the name of the book I can still look it up, I have the citations.)

So, following your line of argument, if 100% of American's were armed, there would be no crimes committed?
I think that far more murders, because they would be a necessary precursor for any and all crimes - including for the guy who just wants your wallet so he can score his next hit. He would be forced to kill you in order to get your wallet, or risk being killed himself.

Americans on this forum seem to believe that band-aid solutions to crime prevention (like arming everybody) will work.
If you are serious about it, you have to first address socio-economic issues. Switzerland is an incredibly wealthy country with high standards of living and good social services programs. That is a more likely explanation for their lack of crime.

I honestly don't know 'bout Switzerland's economy, so I can't argue, but I can point you to issues within the US, such as Florida, Kennesaw, and Washington DC, the city with some of the most strict gun laws in the nation, is not only the political capital, but the murder capital.

I'll take your word for it. So DC has the highest murder rate in the US, but only "some of the most strict" gun laws in the US? Surely if guns were the deciding factor then the cities with the strictest gun laws would also have the highest murder rates? You follow?
Which cities have the most strict gun laws in your country? Why don't they have the highest murder rates, if what you say is true?
The point is that there are other factor at play here - arming more people is a band-aid solution to a greater problem.

[perdidochas]

Blinky wrote: perdidochas wrote: MindlessSheep wrote: This is a question that my brother and I argue back and forth over quite a bit. He's against gun control and owns quite a few hand guns, I'm not a big fan of guns. So here is my question. Is it possible to reduce the murders committed in the US without necessarily hinder the "right to bare arms"? I don't see a way to do it, but maybe I'm not thinking outside of the box enough.

Well, it's been done for the last ten years or so. The CDC (which is an anti-gun organization) has concluded that it can find no evidence that gun control works (or doesnt' work).

Is that to say that they've found nothing?

Yes, they found no indication either way, yet the murder rate has gone down since the mid 1990s. During the same time period, though, incarceration has gone up tremendously.

[Onevote]

Blinky wrote: Demonic Spoon wrote: Switzerland has an ASTOUNDINGLY low crime rate..I believe in 2002, the murder rate was 1.4 per 100,000 people. Switzerland also is known for it's complete lack of an army. Pretty much every house in that nation has an assault rifle. Hunting is a national sport. To put it simply, that country is armed to the teeth.

I think our crime rate is due to two factors.

1) Dumbasses. While dumbasses exist everywhere, American dumbasses tend to be more violent.

2) Gun control. It makes it difficult for an honest, law-abiding citizen to arm themselves, but it is still piss-easy for a criminal to get hold of a gun, because where an honest citizen will not go through all the trouble to get a gun, a criminal will. This is not to mention the black market which is certainly a factor.


Eh?
You're putting America's crime rate down to American's being "violent dumbasses", and the fact that there is a waiting peroid of a couple of days before you can get a gun from a shop?
How do you explain the fact that you are less likely to be murdered/raped/assualted in nations (like Britain) where there is much tighter gun control?



Demonic Spoon wrote: When a criminal thinks there's a good chance of their victim being armed, they will not go through. After all, they're looking for easy, low-risk benefit. Fighting an armed opponent is neither.

But criminals often don't know if someone is armed or not until after they initiate their crime, if it turns out their victim is armed, doesn't it encourage the criminal to use deadly force in order to get what they want and/or not get killed themselves?

Posters here always bang on about the millions of defensive gun uses that occur every year. So obviously criminals, on millions of occassions anually, get it wrong and target an armed civilian.

I think you'll find you have far more shoot first, ask questions later crimes in the US than in countries where every third person isn't a gun owner. That way it isn't fighting anm armed opponent. Its incapacitating a victim, and getting what you want. The vast majority of violent crimes are committed in economically depressed areas( known as ghettos) of our larger cities. I lived in Chicago in the 80's and can tell you, there are parts of Chicago that you would run a very high chance of getting robbed if not killed, simply by going into the wrong area. Chicago has an absolute ban on handguns, but to no avail. IMO, this is a result of crappy schools, economic depression and the drug trade that is so common in these places as well as the ho hum approach by our court and prison systems. It really has little to do with guns.

Now! I have a question. Does Britain or Australia have similar ghettos? I'm not talking about a rough part of town, but the kind of place you should not be, day or night, unless you absolutely have to be there. The kind of place even armed cops don't like to go.

[thundertaker]

Demonic Spoon wrote: Quote:
Switzerland does have an army (mostly conscripts), and an airforce. It even has a merchant navy.........



eh. It's more of a militia.

It has a core professional component. Not that they have much need for an army or an airforce. They never go to war, and none of their neighbours is ever likely to engage in hostile acts of military aggression against them........

[Blinky]

Onevote wrote: Blinky wrote: Demonic Spoon wrote: Switzerland has an ASTOUNDINGLY low crime rate..I believe in 2002, the murder rate was 1.4 per 100,000 people. Switzerland also is known for it's complete lack of an army. Pretty much every house in that nation has an assault rifle. Hunting is a national sport. To put it simply, that country is armed to the teeth.

I think our crime rate is due to two factors.

1) Dumbasses. While dumbasses exist everywhere, American dumbasses tend to be more violent.

2) Gun control. It makes it difficult for an honest, law-abiding citizen to arm themselves, but it is still piss-easy for a criminal to get hold of a gun, because where an honest citizen will not go through all the trouble to get a gun, a criminal will. This is not to mention the black market which is certainly a factor.


Eh?
You're putting America's crime rate down to American's being "violent dumbasses", and the fact that there is a waiting peroid of a couple of days before you can get a gun from a shop?
How do you explain the fact that you are less likely to be murdered/raped/assualted in nations (like Britain) where there is much tighter gun control?



Demonic Spoon wrote: When a criminal thinks there's a good chance of their victim being armed, they will not go through. After all, they're looking for easy, low-risk benefit. Fighting an armed opponent is neither.

But criminals often don't know if someone is armed or not until after they initiate their crime, if it turns out their victim is armed, doesn't it encourage the criminal to use deadly force in order to get what they want and/or not get killed themselves?

Posters here always bang on about the millions of defensive gun uses that occur every year. So obviously criminals, on millions of occassions anually, get it wrong and target an armed civilian.

I think you'll find you have far more shoot first, ask questions later crimes in the US than in countries where every third person isn't a gun owner. That way it isn't fighting anm armed opponent. Its incapacitating a victim, and getting what you want. The vast majority of violent crimes are committed in economically depressed areas( known as ghettos) of our larger cities. I lived in Chicago in the 80's and can tell you, there are parts of Chicago that you would run a very high chance of getting robbed if not killed, simply by going into the wrong area. Chicago has an absolute ban on handguns, but to no avail. IMO, this is a result of crappy schools, economic depression and the drug trade that is so common in these places as well as the ho hum approach by our court and prison systems. It really has little to do with guns.

Now! I have a question. Does Britain or Australia have similar ghettos? I'm not talking about a rough part of town, but the kind of place you should not be, day or night, unless you absolutely have to be there. The kind of place even armed cops don't like to go.

I've lived in Sydney for most of my life, and there is one area that you wouldn't go to unless you had to, but its a small area - literally a couple of blocks. Cops have to go there frequently, but I doubt they feel comfortable there. But for different reasons - Australian cops don't live with the same fear of gun violence as yours do. We have far fewer gun crimes, and far fewer guns. Statistically, its much safer being a cop in Australia than in the US.

That said, I don't know that the reputation the rougher parts of certain US cities have is deserved. Over here you hear, read and see a lot about how rough South Central LA is but when I was there 10 years ago, it wasn't as it has been portrayed at all. I stayed in Inglewood and spent time in Compton, Watts, and South-Central itself - all the areas the media and popular culture had led me to believe were dangerous no-go zones. I felt comfortable, and ran into no trouble.

[LostSoul3412]

Easy way to reduce crime:

Corporal punishment.

Public executions.

[perdidochas]

Blinky wrote: That said, I don't know that the reputation the rougher parts of certain US cities have is deserved. Over here you hear, read and see a lot about how rough South Central LA is but when I was there 10 years ago, it wasn't as it has been portrayed at all. I stayed in Inglewood and spent time in Compton, Watts, and South-Central itself - all the areas the media and popular culture had led me to believe were dangerous no-go zones. I felt comfortable, and ran into no trouble.

And for the most part that's the way it is. Most murders are of people involved in crime, not of otherwise law-abiding citizens. If you weren't involved in sleeping with drug dealers, buying or selling drugs, etc., you were in little danger.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

MichaelRS wrote: I think the removal of certain government policies, like drug prohibition for example, would help reduce murder rates without infringing on the right to bare arms.

5 Cool points to you!