Why do we accept crime?

[Saryctos]

the problem with democracy is that it gives people what they want -- and what people want seems to be a crappyer, poorerly run society, and a widescreen TV

Most people really don't care how crappy their society is, as long as they've got said big screen T.V.

 

 

crime will never be 0. There will always be idiots who want something else some one has. There will always be psychotic* people who kill for fun, or if they get looked at the wrong way. Even in a perfectly egalitarian society there will be people who screw up somehow and instead of solve their problem, they'll just take the solution from some one else.

 

If you knew everyone on your block carried a handgun how likely would you be to go try to steal their wallets? Not nearly as likely as an unarmed neihborhood. Sometimes there's more to crime than simply crime prevention the government can do. People have to defend themselves from time to time instead of just being victimized. Crime will always be there, but what's the successful crime rate these days?

[Mokele]

If you knew everyone on your block carried a handgun how likely would you be to go try to steal their wallets? Not nearly as likely as an unarmed neihborhood.

 

Honestly, I don't think it would make a difference, because it wouldn't take long to figure out that most people just don't have it in them to kill someone except in the direst of circumstances. Plus, there are ways of dealing with an armed opponent, such as sheer numbers or distractions.

 

Honestly, I think the most useful thing would be a non-lethal, minimally painful weapon that effectively and temporarily disables the target, kinda like setting one's phasers to stun. That would have the effect of thwarting the crime in progress (and allow easy pickup by the cops) but without the moral dilemma of shooting someone, meaning people would use it much more readily. Of course, this still wouldn't eliminate crime, but I think a weapon that's essentially consequence-free would be more likely to be used.

 

Mokele

[john5746]

Was going home from a buddy's house last night after a long overdue jam session and as I was leaving he directed me the safest way out of his neighborhood - the "hood" as he calls it. And it is, without a doubt.

 

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

 

Just a short look at the best countries on this list. Try to find a common thread for most of them. One I see is education.

 

The problem with even thinking about reducing murder so low in America is the law of diminishing returns and the bill of rights. In manufacturing, to reduce defects to near zero, you don't try to 'inspect' them out, i.e after the fact. You try to do it right from the beginning. So, the answer is much more complicated then police, IMO.

 

The society itself needs to be changed, with concentration on minorities. These are the neighborhoods with the highest rates, yet the most likely to complain about police brutality. Better education -> better people -> making better decisions -> raising better babies -> seeking better education, etc.

[Dak]

Honestly, I don't think it would make a difference, because it wouldn't take long to figure out that most people just don't have it in them to kill someone except in the direst of circumstances. Plus, there are ways of dealing with an armed opponent, such as sheer numbers or distractions.

 

Honestly, I think the most useful thing would be a non-lethal, minimally painful weapon that effectively and temporarily disables the target, kinda like setting one's phasers to stun. That would have the effect of thwarting the crime in progress (and allow easy pickup by the cops) but without the moral dilemma of shooting someone, meaning people would use it much more readily. Of course, this still wouldn't eliminate crime, but I think a weapon that's essentially consequence-free would be more likely to be used.

 

Mokele

 

http://www.c-p-p.co.uk/product/asp/ProdID/2120/CtgID/1006/af/page.htm

 

something like that? (it doesn't state it in the link, but iirc it's non-harmful to the eyes)

 

i see the same problems associated with that tho: if i have one, and 5 people have them, and those 5 people attack me, i'm gonna loose. i'm gonna incapasitate, say, 3 of them if i'm lucky and readied my spray beforehand, then get blinded myself, and the two who aren't blinded will kick the shit out of me and take my wallet.

 

sure, they'll be blue for 3 days, but then so will i -- they'll just give the same explanation i would: 'i was attacked'. and if they get the jump on people, they're unlikely to get sprayed atall.

 

mind, it's better than guns, and arguably better than just fists imo.

[Bignose]

ParanoiA, please forgive me if this was answered before. I read this thread quickly, and concede I may have missed some of the details.

 

But, do you have a viable solution for crime? One where crime can be reduced to zero or close to zero while still retaining our personal rights and freedom and free will?

 

The reason I ask, is that it is easy to want change and complain about the current state of affairs; however it is a lot harder but much, much more meaningful to come up with real changes that can be made to remedy the situation.

[Saryctos]

i see the same problems associated with that tho: if i have one, and 5 people have them, and those 5 people attack me, i'm gonna loose. i'm gonna incapasitate, say, 3 of them if i'm lucky and readied my spray beforehand, then get blinded myself, and the two who aren't blinded will kick the shit out of me and take my wallet.

 

If you get jumped by 5 people, you should just give them your wallet, and walk away, reguardless of what you have hiding under your coat.

[Sisyphus]

Seems like if everybody carried a stun gun, the mugging rate would go through the roof, because shooting somebody with a stungun first is an incredibly easy and risk-free way of mugging somebody. Carrying such a weapon wouldn't protect you at all, it would just give muggers incentive to shoot you right away.

 

Similarly, if everyone carried concealed firearms, most "muggings" would consist of shooting the victim first, since it would be the only safe way to do it. Muggings would almost certainly go way down as a result (since hopefully people are more reluctant to murder a stranger than to take a stranger's wallet), but second-degree murder would almost certainly go up.

[ParanoiA]

Well, oddly enough I was out on Jury duty this week...go figure

 

Consider the logic behind that argument, though. Why do you get so worked up about a triviality like crime when accidents cause far more deaths per year? Why do you get so worked up about accidents in the fact of heart disease and cancer? Expanding that beyond the US, you get to include the AIDS epidemic depopulating Africa and lovely things like malaria. Hell, the per-year murder rate in the entire US is nothing compared to how many people die every day because they don't have access to clean water, common vaccines, or antibiotics.

 

The sad fact is that people's responses aren't scaled to the actual risk. We're scared of shark attack, but how many people speed?

 

Mokele

 

Ok, accidents are not preventable without literally taking the fun out of life and that's a freewill kind of decision that doesn't infringe on my rights. Heart disease and cancer IS getting the attention I'm talking about. Thank you.

 

I get worked up because the media wants to splash the faces of every white little girl that gets raped and killed and put their parents on TV begging the world to take notice and do something and we all go "damn..what a shame" and don't seem to listen to what they're saying. The media loves death - it pays the bills. And their favorite death is the "precious" white innocent, while no one gives a shit about the minority kids that suffer the same fate without the cameras and community support.

 

Some of you will experience this, sadly enough, and of those, you will remember this post and wonder why you didn't pissed off before you suffered the consequences.

 

I'm really not sure how you intend to reduce crime to zero. Clearly you're bright enough not to think that a bazillion extra police on the streets would actually eliminate crime and not be counter-productive in some cases.

 

Well that's just it. You can't eliminate crime at this point in our evolution without trampling over everyone's rights and I would never be for anything like that. Dissolving the DEA and every other victim-less crime unit in the united states and redirecting these resources to homocide investigation, police presence and so forth would go a long way to reducing crime significantly.

 

Another would be encouraging citizens to buy firearms and learn to use them. Criminals already have them and by definition are not effected in any way by laws of the land. So, laws of the land are only followed by law abiding citizens, again, by definition. So gun laws are insignificant and more dangerous to the security of the country, since the ultimate defenders of the constitution are the citizens - not the government, the military and etc.

 

I firmly believe that getting rid of criminals is more effective than getting rid of guns. Using guns to get rid of criminals is quite effective and should be promoted.

 

But, do you have a viable solution for crime? One where crime can be reduced to zero or close to zero while still retaining our personal rights and freedom and free will?

 

Solution? No. Evolution is the solution as far as I can tell, since the very best deterent to crime is simply the lack of desire to commit it. I'm guessing we're a few million years away from that - if that's even possible.

 

So, just my suggestions above to start. But most of the point of my post is really about emotion. As in...where is it? First the wheel has to sqeek before anyone knows to grease it. I love to use Iraq as an example, to point out the lobsided, politically motivated nature of ourselves. We love to whine and bitch about soldiers dying in war but nothing to really complain about citizens dying in peace. Very strange... Where's the calls for the president's head on that? What about more troops? What about more armor?

 

There are alot of smart people in this country that have some terrific ideas on how to stop crime significantly. I just think we all need to start demanding this from our greasy politicians. We've got plenty of unrealistic demands being hurled around about Iraq, why not about crime?

[ParanoiA]

If you get jumped by 5 people, you should just give them your wallet, and walk away, reguardless of what you have hiding under your coat.

 

I agree. This is why training is important. Don't just buy a gun and think you're finished - you need to know how to use it, clean it, practice with it, lock it up - and when NOT to use the damn thing.

 

Seems like if everybody carried a stun gun, the mugging rate would go through the roof, because shooting somebody with a stungun first is an incredibly easy and risk-free way of mugging somebody. Carrying such a weapon wouldn't protect you at all, it would just give muggers incentive to shoot you right away.

 

I disagree. Muggers aren't going to turn murderer that easily. Some will, no doubt.

 

This reminds me of the mentallity of being afraid to piss off the aggressor even more, so you just lie back and take it. Pacifists use this alot.

 

If someone starts punching me, I'm going to punch them back. I know they'll get even more pissed, but too bad - that's how it works. You want the bully to leave you alone? You better make him bleed. So if you're going to get all squeamish about hitting him back, fine, just take it and I'm sure he'll have no problem dishing it out day after day.

 

Crime is a serious thing. There's no risk-free, nice way to go about it. No matter how nice you are, people will die. No matter how mean you are, people will die. Yes, promoting gun ownership and provoking the public to fight back might seem scary and more people will likely die. But it's worth it if it leads to lower crime in the future. I believe it will.

 

Crime is a choice. Don't believe that people have no choice or are cornered. We are all cornered. Any day now I could lose my job, and then a couple months later lose my house and cars - my family. I don't need to kill anyone though, or steal for my stuff. I CAN be expected to be dealt hard blows in life and NOT hurt others as a result of it. MOST of us do it everyday...

 

Edit: That last paragraph was in reference to the view that crime is of pure necessity, irrelevant to consequence.

[Sisyphus]

I disagree. Muggers aren't going to turn murderer that easily. Some will, no doubt.

 

If you read carefully, you'll notice I was talking about STUN guns, like the kind of thing Mokele was speculating about. In the next paragraph (the one you didn't quote) I'm talking about conventional, lethal firearms, which I say would drive muggings way down, because they'd all have to become murders (carrying a gun is not a defense against getting shot, it's just an incentive for your attacker to shoot you first), and people are reluctant to kill. But yes, I think it's inevitable the murder rate would go up, even as all other crime goes down.

 

A STUN gun, however, makes it just as easy or even easier to rob somebody than by shooting them with a conventional gun, and doesn't make anybody a murderer. Absolutely anyone could easily rob absolutely anyone else. Zap. Take. The only exception would be in crowded areas, where bystanders could happily zap a fleeing mugger, foiling crime with none of the danger of running down and tackling somebody!

 

You seem like you're responding primarily to me with the rest of your post ("this reminds me of..."), but I'm not sure how it relates, so....

[ParanoiA]

But you said:

 

Carrying such a weapon wouldn't protect you at all, it would just give muggers incentive to shoot you right away.

 

That kind of threw me. So, I thought you were also trying to make the point that by fighting back, you get worse in return.

 

As for the rest, I was mainly addressing the anti-gun part of the forum. Admittedly, I'm not sure where you are on that one. Dak hinted to it in an earlier post as well. Gun education would be a good idea at this point, since most criminals probably haven't had any. That would give us an edge up.

[ParanoiA]

The society itself needs to be changed, with concentration on minorities. These are the neighborhoods with the highest rates, yet the most likely to complain about police brutality. Better education -> better people -> making better decisions -> raising better babies -> seeking better education, etc.

 

Very true. In terms of education, it would help if people would quit giving them excuses and using "class envy" to get voters. I can't believe we can repeatedly tell poor minorites that the rich is stealing their labor, and that affirmative action is necessary to make people not be racist - and believe this doesn't compliment the criminal mind. It's easy to hurt people and justify it when you've been practically conditioned to believe these people are hurting you everyday, hiding behind the law and their money.

[Sisyphus]

I'm not sure where I am on it, either. I want to be against gun control, if that means anything, but rationally, I can't help but see problems.

 

My point with that sentence was that "fighting back" is meaningless when everyone is carrying an easy to use and basically instant lethal weapon. I'm walking behind you down the street. I take out my gun and shoot you in the head. Ok, now fight back. What's your move?

 

Obviously, you don't have one. You're dead. But that scenario would only be likely if I had reason to believe you were armed as well, and could therefore expose myself to mortal danger by not incapacitating you. Otherwise, I would much rather just use my gun to threaten you, not becoming a murderer and not expecting you to shoot at me as I'm running away.

[ParanoiA]

I'm not sure where I am on it, either. I want to be against gun control, if that means anything, but rationally, I can't help but see problems.

 

My point with that sentence was that "fighting back" is meaningless when everyone is carrying an easy to use and basically instant lethal weapon. I'm walking behind you down the street. I take out my gun and shoot you in the head. Ok, now fight back. What's your move?

 

Obviously, you don't have one. You're dead. But that scenario would only be likely if I had reason to believe you were armed as well, and could therefore expose myself to mortal danger by not incapacitating you. Otherwise, I would much rather just use my gun to threaten you, not becoming a murderer and not expecting you to shoot at me as I'm running away.

 

Well that's true, and that falls under my previous post. You're right. But you're basically outlining what happens when everyone has the same weapon. Right now, by and large, all of the criminals have these weapons and the rest of us do not. So you're using this logic to keep yourself unarmed. That's fine, you'll only get mugged....with no end in sight.

 

However, if you risk a little bit more and fight back with weaponry, there will be death - either you or him. Maybe, like you say, they start shooting first so they continue to win. But then a simple mugging becomes a more complicated murder - they have to invest far more than what they're comfortable with and it becomes less attractive. Which is actually, your point in the previous post.

 

I'd rather fight back. Freedom isn't free. I'm not free when I'm afraid to go out at night, when I have every right to expect peace at 3 am walking to the store. It's worth it.

 

Why does it have to be an invading army to fight for freedom?

[Dak]

Right now, by and large, all of the criminals have these weapons and the rest of us do not

 

unless you live in a country like the UK, where guns are illegal.

 

then, by and large, the criminals dont have guns

 

and, incidentally, less people get murdered...

[Saryctos]

unless you live in a country like the UK, where guns are illegal.

 

then, by and large, the criminals dont have guns

 

and, incidentally, less people get murdered...

 

Most guns used by criminals are either stolen or Illegally purchased.

[Sisyphus]

Most guns used by criminals are either stolen or Illegally purchased.

 

Undoubtably true, but I don't think it really qualifies as an explanation, particularly with regards to "illegally purchased." Purchased from whom? Did that person purchase it illegally? It seems like somewhere along the line, somebody had to buy the gun legally, unless the factories are regularly raided by pirates. That being so, it seems like it should be possible to drastically curb black market sales just by being less laissez-faire with gun registration. If somebody is murdered with a gun, shouldn't it be possible to find out who bought the gun originally, and hold that person fully responsible? Wasn't there a movement a few years ago to make a ballistic database of every weapon sold from which it could be traced? Didn't the NRA throw a hissy fit (thereby killing it, because of their ridiculous influence in Congress)? Why do you suppose that is? They claimed what they always do, vague BS about freedom and the second amendment. So it couldn't have anything to do with greed, could it? Destroying the black market would hurt the "legitimate" market....

 

I'm not yelling at you, it's just that our nonsensical policies really annoy me. We could have more gun freedom and less gun danger simultaneously, and all it would take would be for somebody to blow up NRA headquarters...

[ParanoiA]

Undoubtably true, but I don't think it really qualifies as an explanation, particularly with regards to "illegally purchased." Purchased from whom? Did that person purchase it illegally? It seems like somewhere along the line, somebody had to buy the gun legally, unless the factories are regularly raided by pirates.

 

"...unless the factories are regularly raided by pirates." - now that's funny.

 

I thought it was determined that gun theft happens outside of the factory as well. That's also what the NRA is bitching about, concerning the ballistic database. Because innocent people will get accused of selling a gun illegaly, when it may have been stolen or "borrowed" (such as drugged out family members..). Then we get legislation punishing gun owners for not keeping their guns out of reach of anyone - in their own home. That's coming very soon. Real gun control advocates seek to scare the idea of gun ownership out of everyone's mind.

[Ndi]

Also, even if we were able to eliminate all needs for crime (drugs, poverty, etc) there will still be crimes of passion.

 

And crimes of idiocy, showoffs, people who get the wrong idea of how to get into history, people with bad nerves, etc etc. I'm a lot more scared of a teenager with a gun laughing at friends and pointing it around that I am of a person who points and says "the wallet". Because it's a fair guess that if I hand over the wallet, he will just disappear. Screw the wallet, I can get more if I'm alive.

 

Honestly, I think the most useful thing would be a non-lethal, minimally painful weapon that effectively and temporarily disables the target, kinda like setting one's phasers to stun.

 

If it's not murder then it doesn't have 20 years attached to it. It will have to be a law that allows a person that sees something like an attack to respond (poorly) so at the lowest end it will carry no punishment or very little.

 

Little punishment means that in 10 people one will see sunning people on the street as funny. 2 more will see it as funny when drunk.

 

The only thing I can think of with everyone having tasers is some idiots who get bored that stun someone the run and laugh crying "haha, did you see that idiot fall over? mwaha!" It's no longer a crime, it's a bad joke.

 

The only exception would be in crowded areas, where bystanders could happily zap a fleeing mugger, foiling crime with none of the danger of running down and tackling somebody!

 

You put way too much faith in average people's ability to make correct and informed decisions.

 

You let people have the ability to instant-knock people out when these people run red lights with their wife and children in the car. And it takes a license to drive a car, and there are cameras there so they KNOW they are doing a bad thing and they are being observed.

 

Destroying the black market would hurt the "legitimate" market....

 

I have no idea about your countries but in mine the phone companies don't help you locate a stolen phone (even tho they could) nor do they lock them out. Each phone has an unique number (IMEI) that gets send to the network when powering the phone. If stolen, deny access. Simple. Doesn't happen. And the market is not as rich as gun market.

 

My idea is to allow people who are law-abiding, have flawless records (I don't mean speeding) to make a request to become law-helpers. After an exam on conduit and law, they are allowed to carry one of these and have the duty to intervene as long as they feel it's safe to do so.

 

This will not only help by having policeman in disguise, but also one in every <insert your vision here> will not cower and hand over the wallet but instead start shooting like crazy, having training to use that weapon.

 

Also, they don't need that many years of training since they are non-lethal. Oh, and, any crime committed by these people having any connection with their status is considered high crime. Say, 4X multiplier? A signed contract could do that.

[Dak]

Then we get legislation punishing gun owners for not keeping their guns out of reach of anyone - in their own home

 

if a gun can be stolen or 'borrowed' from a home, then it's not out of reach merely by being in the home.

 

i really dont see the argument against saying that if people want to posess tools designed soley to kill people with, then they should be required to keep them safely secured. for personal defence from intruders, a non-leathal weapon such as a stun gun might work just as well, not require locking down, and result in less accidental deaths.

 

however, maybe technology will give us a more eloquent solution: i remember reading some development thats being done on biometric guns, where the gun-grip measures the plasement and magnitude of pressure around the gun handle when wielded, and can tell wether the holder is the owner or someone else, and automatically lock-up if wielded by a non-owner. i believe it can still id the owner if the owner is wielding it whilst stressed, but is somewhat unreliable (and i'd assume that making removal of the lock-up mechanism non-trivial is somewhat hard). something like that would work as a compromise between gun ownership and gun responsability; tho for home defence i'd still like to see stun-guns rather than traditional, lethal guns.

[ParanoiA]

if a gun can be stolen or 'borrowed' from a home' date=' then it's not out of reach merely by being in the home.

 

i really dont see the argument against saying that if people want to posess tools designed soley to kill people with, then they should be required to keep them safely secured. for personal defence from intruders, a non-leathal weapon such as a stun gun might work just as well, not require locking down, and result in less accidental deaths.[/quote']

 

See what I mean? I'm talking about having my gun in my house. If I'm single, living alone, then there should be no expectation put on me about where my gun is at. I can have it on my coffee table watching southpark. That is where I see legislation stepping in and telling me I have to further secure my weapon. That I'm being "irresponsible" by leaving it out - even though no one is in the house but me - and punishing me if it was stolen.

 

This is the kind of thing the NRA fights with, and I hope they continue to do it. Gun control advocates see gun owners as criminals, idiots - hick cowboys with beer cans to shoot and minorites to intimidate. They're more judgemental than Jerry Fallwell.

 

As a matter of practicality and proper training, yes a gun should be kept away - locked up (like mine is) - even with no one else living or present in the home. For a ton of reasons. But as a matter of Law? No way.

 

I hear someone creeping around the house and I call the cops - they find nothing. They leave and later I hear it again. I get my gun out, convinced some guy is going to pop out and stab me, and I nestle down and wait. And I wait..and I wait and I fall asleep on the couch with my gun on the coffee table. I wake up to the police pounding on my door, they caught some guy in my backyard empyting my shed - but hey, what's this? A gun, out on the coffee table? That's a violation of the gun security act, and I get hauled downtown...

 

These are the kinds of scenarios I think about when the anti-gun crowd gets going.

[Sisyphus]

I think you have to consider it a matter of degree. That example would be unreasonable, but would it be as unreasonable to make a law prohibiting unattended loaded weapons in a house with children? Or maybe not even making a law, would it be unreasonable to classify that as child endangerment/criminal neglect and already against the law? Or how about, instead of on your coffeetable with you right there in room, it was on your front porch and you were inside?

[ParanoiA]

I think you have to consider it a matter of degree. That example would be unreasonable, but would it be as unreasonable to make a law prohibiting unattended loaded weapons in a house with children? Or maybe not even making a law, would it be unreasonable to classify that as child endangerment/criminal neglect and already against the law? Or how about, instead of on your coffeetable with you right there in room, it was on your front porch and you were inside?

 

But that's why I don't agree with additional legislation. Couldn't you make the same case with prescription medication? How about cyanide? How about liquid draino? That stuff classicaly kills kids, where's the legislation on that?

 

Yes, degree is important. It's also important to realize you don't need a law to govern ever single possible variation of human thought and action.

 

I would rail against such laws with respect to medications, poisons, as well as guns because it's too oppressive - its enforcement relies heavily on passing "judgement" rather than clearly crossing a legal line. That's how innocent people get hanged for being witches...

[ParanoiA]

however, maybe technology will give us a more eloquent solution:

 

I'm actually excited and dissappointed on this front. I'm excited about the possibilities and the consequence of solving alot of our gun accident issues - not to mention law enforcement defense as well. But I'm dissappointed because it should already be out and about and practical to buy and perhaps even require their use in new firearms.

 

I love the idea of knowing that neither the intruder, my kids nor anyone else can fire my gun but me. And perhaps my wife.

 

My favorite is the fingerprint model. Supposedly, you can program it for various users.

[Sisyphus]

But do you agree that such an interpretation of existing legislation would be justified? I agree wholeheartedly that unnecessary and redundant laws should be avoided, but my point was more that, one way or another, there has to be a line drawn somewhere, and the debate should focus on where and how, not whether.