Here how you keep Gun crimes down

[Caribou]

The concept of shame is a great place to start. Yes, it is punishment. No, it should not be the only option available. Shame should start in the home. If the parents don't teach the kid shame it will be very hard for society to do so. We also need to stop shielding juveniles from their crimes. Kids know that their names can't be published and that they get a clean slate when they turn 18.

Here juveniles are not convicted they are adjudicated. Which means when they turn 18 they have no convictions. They are turned loose after being incarcerated for crimes up to rape and murder. For lesser non violent crimes they probably weren't locked up for unless they got caught repeatedly. The one who actually commits a murder will probably be tried as an adult while the ones who watched or knew of it beforehand will be processed as juveniles.

At one time in our history people were placed in stocks in the public square. For more severe crimes they might be sentenced to dunking (now termed water boarding). The humiliation of public ridicule was enough to keep most in line. Instilling shame is certainly not the sole answer but without it then the sentences had better be very long indeed.

As for capital punishment, I am against it. Now don't get me wrong there are certainly people who deserve to die. It is not the perp that I am thinking of. I do not believe that you can take a life without it affecting you. Therefore, I against doing injury to the execution team. Yes I would pull the trigger to protect myself or my loved ones. Yes, I would expect to pay and emotional price for doing so. To me that is different than pushing the plunger on someone that is strapped to a gurney.

Thanks for making room on the soap box.

 

[hotti]

no 3rd worlders, no blacks, no poverty in Switzerland. It's a VERY expensive place to live. that changes many things, not just crime.

 

[Lakeland Man]

I'd like to know where nogods gets the facts to back up his assertion that Alaska has the highest violent crime rate. I did a very simple Google search and came up with this link for the first result:

Most dangerous states: Crime rankings for 2010 - DailyFinance

There were 14.2 million results and I'd venture to say that the vast majority of them do not support nogods statement.

 

[FN1910]

The concept of shame is a great place to start. Yes, it is punishment. No, it should not be the only option available. Shame should start in the home. If the parents don't teach the kid shame it will be very hard for society to do so. We also need to stop shielding juveniles from their crimes. Kids know that their names can't be published and that they get a clean slate when they turn 18.

Here juveniles are not convicted they are adjudicated. Which means when they turn 18 they have no convictions. They are turned loose after being incarcerated for crimes up to rape and murder. For lesser non violent crimes they probably weren't locked up for unless they got caught repeatedly. The one who actually commits a murder will probably be tried as an adult while the ones who watched or knew of it beforehand will be processed as juveniles.

At one time in our history people were placed in stocks in the public square. For more severe crimes they might be sentenced to dunking (now termed water boarding). The humiliation of public ridicule was enough to keep most in line. Instilling shame is certainly not the sole answer but without it then the sentences had better be very long indeed.

As for capital punishment, I am against it. Now don't get me wrong there are certainly people who deserve to die. It is not the perp that I am thinking of. I do not believe that you can take a life without it affecting you. Therefore, I against doing injury to the execution team. Yes I would pull the trigger to protect myself or my loved ones. Yes, I would expect to pay and emotional price for doing so. To me that is different than pushing the plunger on someone that is strapped to a gurney.

Thanks for making room on the soap box.

I agree with your thinking and one thing I will add. People call me crazy but I am also against capital punishment however I am not against executions. I do not believe that we should execute someone as a punishment or act of revenge. However there are some that even while imprisoned continue to find ways to traumatize or even seek retaliation on the families or friends of their victims. They continue to commit crimes through their friends or contacts, they may send letters or make phone calls to those they have already victimized and actually imprisonment means very little to their continued revenge on society. For those I favor execution to relieve society of their evil ways, at least until we figure out how to place them in Superman's phantom zone.

As I said I am not in favor of execution as a form of punishment or revenge but some do not deserve to continue to plague society and pollute the air that you and I breathe. Until we find some way to separate them from the rest of the population then cremation is the alternative. They do not deserve to be buried in the earth and take up precious land with their grave.

 

[GOV5]

Using a California-Berkeley author as reference material isn't choosing the best source, in my opinion. That's the land of La-La for sure. Wacko Liberal theorists mainly, I think. LOL!!!

 

[nogods]

What you posted supports what I said in the first place. We need the death penalty more often. Incarceration is not enough most of the time. In countries like Switzerland, where the government is in check and they use the death penalty, crime is lower than countries that try to rehabilitate. Singapore uses public humiliation (whipping) to deter crime. It works. Their overall crime rate is almost as low as Switzerland's. Punishment is part of a civilized society.

It's funny that you imply that I am ignorant when you haven't paid attention to what have said. You also haven't given one example of any successful culture that doesn't/didn't use some form of punishment. I'm still waiting...

I guess you didn't read the linked article - the abstract first states the expected outcome of the research. The last sentence of the is the author's statement that their expectations were wrong.

That is how social research works. An issue is identified. Based on existing evidence a hypothesis is developed. Controlled evidenced is then collected and analyzed. The supportable conclusions are then compared to the hypothesis.

Maybe there were too many multi syllable words in the abstract for you, so let me try to simplify it for you.

Logic suggest that upon becoming exposed to more sever punishment, one who turns 18 would reduce criminal behavior if greater punishment influenced criminal behavior. the research shows that did not happen.

Can you show any culture that successfully used punishment to eliminate crime?

The point is that punishment does not persuade criminals not to commit crime.

Simple solutions are attractive to simple minds, but they aren't solutions.

 

[Drunkbeater]

[/QUOTE]
I guess you didn't read the linked article - the abstract first states the expected outcome of the research. The last sentence of the is the author's statement that their expectations were wrong.

That is how social research works. An issue is identified. Based on existing evidence a hypothesis is developed. Controlled evidenced is then collected and analyzed. The supportable conclusions are then compared to the hypothesis.

Maybe there were too many multi syllable words in the abstract for you, so let me try to simplify it for you.

Logic suggest that upon becoming exposed to more sever punishment, one who turns 18 would reduce criminal behavior if greater punishment influenced criminal behavior. the research shows that did not happen.

Can you show any culture that successfully used punishment to eliminate crime?

The point is that punishment does not persuade criminals not to commit crime.

Simple solutions are attractive to simple minds, but they aren't solutions.[/QUOTE]

I can't show you a culture that eliminated crime through punishment. Crime can never be eliminated. Crime can be deterred and reduced through punishment. Please, read this article posted below! I'm sorry if this doesn't link you there. You may have to type in whole address. I don't know how to post a link.

http://www.heritage.org/research/testimony/the-death-penalty-deters-crime-and-saves-lives

 

[wooddoctor]

Alaska has the the nations highest violent crime rate.

The point is that neither strict nor lax gun laws lead to lower violent crime rates.

Both "more guns = less crime" and "more guns = more crime" arguments are bogus. Both are false.

We do no service to the advancement of gun owners' rights by propounding arguments so easily dismissed.

It's like listening to two people argue over whether the sun goes around the earth counter clockwise or clockwise.

Your claims are bogus. Do more reaserch.

 

[GOV5]

wooddoctor,

nogods's claims about both sides of the argument being bogus are wrong, as you say. But that isn't his point, nor mine. When you start using statistics, as ammo for ANY subject, the conversation instantly turns to an argument about whether or not the statistics are right, or flawed. In my opinion, that is where we are in the gun ownership battle Nationally. We have allowed the fight to be taken off on a tangent.

It doesn't make any difference at all if "more guns" = "more crime". That's not the point. The point is, we have the God-given right, and the Historically confirmed right, down through International Law, that we have the right to self defense. And to that end, our U.S. Constitution, in the 2nd Amendment, states that right. It further states that it is not a National Gift, or a State gift, it is a Personal right to be able to Keep, and Bear arms for self defense. And that is the message we need to keep pounding. No more of this making up statistics, and quoting stories of how some Counties or Cities made folks carry guns and crime went down, etc. And personally, I don't care if the crime rates went up in a city were gun laws were made more lax. That's even MORE of a reason to be able to carry one, because by definition, the crimes were committed by.......guess who?...............CRIMINALS! And criminals know where and how to get guns, and law abiding citizens don't know about those sources.

And the next time you hear the "More guns= more crime" argument, just stop the person using that argument and ask them where they got that info. They can't give you an answer, most likely. And even if they do(and who is to say it's credible), ask them how many of those crimes were committed by law abiding citizens? That question sounds so stupid, doesn't it? Because by definition, "law-abiding citizens" don't commit crimes. LOL! Furthermore, that person's question Should be what to do about increased Crime. Their argument is basically saying that guns make criminals commit more crimes. That's an absurd thesis. Less guns obviously isn't the answer, and more policemen might help, but I doubt it. The world has always had criminals, and we always will. We need a way to defend ourselves against the more violent criminals....the ones that would not only steal from us, but also do us harm while stealing from us.

And the more our politicians use class warfare, the more we are going to need guns for self defense. Because our politicians, with their ignorant rhetoric, are setting a scenario where the "Haves" are the reason the "Havenots" are in such bad shape financially. So sooner or later, a portion of the Havenots are convinced that it is their "right" to have some of what the Haves own..and thus, they steal from them. But they steal with a hate in their heart, and that makes some of the crimes more harmful and deadly.

 

[nogods]

I guess you didn't read the linked article - the abstract first states the expected outcome of the research. The last sentence of the is the author's statement that their expectations were wrong.

That is how social research works. An issue is identified. Based on existing evidence a hypothesis is developed. Controlled evidenced is then collected and analyzed. The supportable conclusions are then compared to the hypothesis.

Maybe there were too many multi syllable words in the abstract for you, so let me try to simplify it for you.

Logic suggest that upon becoming exposed to more sever punishment, one who turns 18 would reduce criminal behavior if greater punishment influenced criminal behavior. the research shows that did not happen.

Can you show any culture that successfully used punishment to eliminate crime?

The point is that punishment does not persuade criminals not to commit crime.

Simple solutions are attractive to simple minds, but they aren't solutions.[/QUOTE]

I can't show you a culture that eliminated crime through punishment. Crime can never be eliminated. Crime can be deterred and reduced through punishment. Please, read this article posted below! I'm sorry if this doesn't link you there. You may have to type in whole address. I don't know how to post a link.

The Death Penalty Deters Crime and Saves Lives[/QUOTE]

The research on which the heritage article was based have long since been debunked. that research, preformed by second and third tier universities, was reviewed by researchers at Yale and Wharton(Penn), published in the Stanford Law Review, and found to be a lot of hooey.

USES AND ABUSES OF EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE IN THE DEATH PENALTY DEBATE: Link Removed

 

[nogods]

Your claims are bogus. Do more reaserch.

That's all you got? Very convincing.

So I'll just respond "No they are not."

So there. You do more research.

 

[Drunkbeater]

Your claims are bogus. Do more reaserch.

That's all you got? Very convincing.

So I'll just respond "No they are not."

So there. You do more research.

Here's some research for you: the Bible. You keep saying punishment doesn't work, so why would God "punish" His children when they were wicked? For the hell of it? I'm sure you'll take issue with this. Take it up with God, but I'm pretty sure you won't because I assume you're an atheist based on your name.

 

[BC1]

FYI... You're arguing with a very astute attorney. His statements are right on the money.

Thank you, BC1...I really appreciate that. That obviously means he can't be wrong. FYI...every single one of your posts have been worthless/pointless/irrelevant. You pick fights and start arguments with everybody based on your misunderstandings. You're a bully.

No sir. That's the second attorney that you claim is stupid and wrong in the past few days. When we disagree you resort to name calling and insults. Search my posts. Never a bully to anyone. If my responses are that of a bully you are easily bullied. I recommend you go see an attorney and get a consult on these topics.

 

[Lakeland Man]

As I understand it, punishment isn't meant to deter crime generally. It is intended to punish. It does deter crime specifically, meaning that those punished tend not to repeat their crime unless there are other factors. (Mental, emotional, societal, financial, etc...) The more severe the punishment, the less likely they are to re-offend. The death penalty has shown that, when applied, the repeat offender rate falls to zero.

Have any of you ever read "Crime and Punishment in America"? It wasn't what I expected when I read it years ago.

 

[Drunkbeater]

FYI... You're arguing with a very astute attorney. His statements are right on the money.

Thank you, BC1...I really appreciate that. That obviously means he can't be wrong. FYI...every single one of your posts have been worthless/pointless/irrelevant. You pick fights and start arguments with everybody based on your misunderstandings. You're a bully.

No sir. That's the second attorney that you claim is stupid and wrong in the past few days. When we disagree you resort to name calling and insults. Search my posts. Never a bully to anyone. If my responses are that of a bully you are easily bullied. I recommend you go see an attorney and get a consult on these topics.

Yeah, I'll get right on that.

 

[Drunkbeater]

The death penalty has shown that, when applied, the repeat offender rate falls to zero.

That's really funny. I like that.

 

[Raider-3]

When I got out of the military I wish I could have taken my m2 with me. I would have it mounted on top of my pickup in a turret

 

[hotti]

so you want to STEAL 10k or so from the taxpayers of this country, eh? M2 .50 cals cost us a lot of money.

 

[ironmike86]

Who talking about stealing?? The Military let them take there weapons home..if you keep up with the thread you would know. Why post if you don't????

 

[hotti]

no, the military did NOT let them take anything, much less weapons! It's still stealing, even if the sergeant or officer "looks the other way". Guys LIE about such things on these forums, cause the Feds NEVER quit looking for stolen Military guns, and whomever they catch them with is guilty of a felony, possession of stolen property.