Violent Crime: Who or what is to blame?

[Only-virgins]

What the hell are you talking about, OV?

Are you comparing violent crime to the sex lives of women?

No. I am comparing past to past.

[TDurden]

"Americans, in their isolation from Europe, are also isolated from the history of wars that shapes the culture of Europeans. We, as a society, did not experience the holocaust, the blitzkrieg, or the loss of sovereignty to a "foreign" government that France, Poland, Hungary and others experienced. We are not impacted on a daily basis by the strife in Ireland or the Middle East.

................

So we are arrogant, hedonistic, nihilistic... but we are also insulated, naive and spoiled - we are a nation of adolescents protected by our parents
overseas who carry the burdens of the wars of the world. As weapons progress and more countries obtain them, we may grow up very soon. Perhaps we'll stop killing ourselves when others start killing us."

.

Thank the **** Christ! Somebody finally said it.

And OV is a pathetic and confused young man

[Only-virgins]

And OV is a pathetic and confused young man

I'm glad you think that, but...I don't care what you think "yawn"

[LoveTwist]

Who cares anymore people? It doesn't matter..forget that shit. It is in the past right? just like all of you always say so.

Huh? I did post in the correct form right? We're discussing the problems of gun crime and how to go about changing it? Know I didn't really come up with any ‘light bulb above head’ solutions here, but it is true that stricter gun laws can help to reduce gun crime... well in the long run. The evidence is clear.

What’s the point of the past if you're not going to at least acknowledge your mistakes, and think of ways to do things better in the future? Just adding some thoughts here. But I'm aware much of this has no doubt been repeated many times by many people. So feel free to ignore it if you want.

Just to add another point (In case someone else points it out) - I’m aware that crime rates over all are not always lower in countries with stricter gun laws. In the UK, rates of rape and murder may be down, but burglaries and muggings are more common so stricter gun laws don’t solve everything.

However, would you rather have lower rates of murder and save lives that would otherwise be lost to gun crime, and the price is you get your mobile phone nicked every once in awhile? Or more senseless shootings and deaths, but if some bastard breaks into your home and tries to steal your TV you can save it by shooting it out of his hands?

[Chimeros0]

LoveTwist is the only one that is thinking out of the American box here.
He posted a European view that says it all.
Do you guys know that they are now banning import & sale of Fake/Pirate Copy Katana's in Europe.
Why...
Because some drunk idiots used these cheap "toys" as weapons.
They didn't even use guns & they are banning those items so that the majority can't get there hands on it.
They might as well ban bricks to prevent muggings,late night robberies and to a lesser degree murders in my country.
I am a South African & to get a gun here is nearly impossible with our new gun regulations.

My point...

So what do the under crust of society use to do their crimes???
Anything they can get their hands on!!!

[Gribble]

I would rather have a guy come at me with a katana than a gun.

Banning knives, swords, etc. is ridiculous. Anything can be used as a melee weapon. A credit card snapped in half could be used to slit a throat. Perhaps European countries ought to ban them. What about shoelaces? Someone might use one to garrote.

[Chimeros0]

The crux is take away the tool & it will be replaced.
Regardless of function.

That is how humanity has evolved.

Shall we make a list of potential mid - long range weapons to use then?
OK:

Throwing Knives;
Crossbows;
Molotov Cocktails;
Bow & Arrow;
Catties;
Darts - LOL;
etc.

"Innovation is the mother of creation."

[Gribble]

Throwing Knives cannot be effectively used as weapons. You must know the exact distance from yourself to the target. They're only good for shows.

Crossbows are deadly but they are also bulky single-shot weapons. I'd rather have someone come at me with something I can see from a distance and that can only fire a single time. Handguns are far deadlier.

Molotov Cocktails are deadly if you're hit directly or you're in an enclosed area with no alternative exit, say inside a car. Again, I think I'd rather face a Molotov than a handgun.

Bow & Arrow same as crossbows except they take extensive training to use properly. Criminals don't care to train. They want something they can point and kill with.

Dunno what catties are.

Darts still don't scare me like a pistol.

[LoveTwist]

Of course any thing could potentially be used as a weapon. Hell a guy can kill someone with his bare hands.

But guns are "designed" to be effective killing machines. Sure you can use a brick to smash someone’s head in, but are you really going to carry a load of bricks in your bag just for that purpose? And could you throw a brick across the street and hit someone accurately enough to kill? I doubt it.
Sure you can use knives too, but knives aren't designed for killing, they have other uses. What use does a gun have other than too harm or kill people? (and I'm including self defence in this). Shooting tin cans doesn't count.. you don't need to use a live gun with real bullets for that.. you can use foam pellets to shoot tin cans just as effectively.

Also someone can kill lots of people quickly with a gun, and its almost impossible to stop them. If someone throws a knife then they're much less likely to hit the person accurately enough to kill, and the victim has more time to react, defend themselves and/ or move out of the line of fire. Its a hell of a lot harder to predict when someone’s going to shoot a gun and to dodge a bullet, unless you're superman.

To kill the large number of people killed in incidents like the Virginia Tech University shootings, with knives you'd have to be an expert knife thrower, and even then its likely you'd be stopped a lot sooner. And sure you could use a bomb... but bombs are illegal and it would take a lot more time and effort to put together a bomb and use it.

If you're a messed up teenager obsessing over a personal problem and can barely see straight, its unlikely you'd spend all that time and effort to put together a bomb. But if you've got easy access to a gun then its easy to bung in some bullets and go off on a mad rampage. I agree with Gribble here... most people aren't going to have the training or accuracy needed to fine cross-bows and darts effectively enough to kill.

And I do agree that its stupid just to go around banning anything and everything that can be used as a weapon. But some of the more deadlier items, like guns (and yeah.. even the Katana swords and cross-bows like you suggested as alternatives) should be more strictly controlled.

Not saying they should be banned altogether. Just think people should carry a licence to own weapons like that, so that every other gimbo on the street can’t get hold of one and go on senseless killing sprees, accidentally shoot their mate or get completely drunk and shoot the first guy who looks at them the wrong way.

[Junket]

On top of the United State's National Constitution, I just found Pennsylvania's constitution, which states:

Right to Bear Arms
Section 21.
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

I just find that funny...

[Tiay]

pfft, fras. the right to bear arms needn't be interpreted like that. every state does it differently. A state could say "you can only bear arms for hunting and you must be mentally sound and.. etc etc." or it could just say "ah heck, you really oughta be older than 12 to buy a gun if it's against your parents wishes.."

Is there a correlation between the laxity of gun laws and the incidents of gun crimes? I dunno. I wouldn't suspect that it'd be particularly strong, 'cos I imagine it's pretty easy to get a gun even if you're not allowed to in your state for whatever reason. just borrow one, or drive across a border or whatever.

Me, i'd rather live in a place where only the government have guns, than where everyone has guns.

[Junket]

pfft, fras. the right to bear arms needn't be interpreted like that. every state does it differently.

Well, that's how my state interprets the "right to bear arms".

There was no other amendments to it, or any explanation. That's why I found it so humorous.

In any case, you should know that America was founded on the distrust of the government.

Here you have the Commonwealth stating that:
Political Powers
Section 2.
All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety and happiness. For the advancement of these ends they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think proper.

I would interpret this as the will to resort to anarchy as a means to preserve democracy.

Interesting isn't it?

I've been brought up to be respectful, however wary of the government. The whole idea behind democracy is that the government serves the people, and if it does not, that the people can choose to remove the government. So long as the elected Americans have similar sentiments, we may not have to resort to such measures.

America feeds off of controversy.

It keeps us relatively in balance.

It's what makes this country great.

But all good things eventually come to an end.

That's what guns are for.

[Tiay]

(edit: wrote this before you replied. reading that now.)

ah, I think i'm on to something here. You guys don't trust your government, which is a government that is a bad big brother in other ways anyway. Who knows what they'll do next. Nobody votes, either. Many people feel ignored by the government. The police bears arms, implying that their rule is not voluntary, but rather forced, or could easily be forced if needed. In that environment, I might (grudgingly) want a gun myself!

Having the regular irish police be unarmed sent a huge message. here we also know that the government are a bunch of incompetent morons... And with what force would they suppress the irish people anyway? heh, the military? but those are all regular citizens. This is a country that in part owes its freedom to guns, and yet nobody wants any now? Because there's no fear of the government.

[Tiay]

ah, yeah, distrust of government. Power to the people is great and all- but you need the gov.. well. A government of some kind. it'd be anarchy without it. everyone would be running around with guns killing each other and.. oh. wait a sec.

whatever it is you have over there, it is not proper democracy anymore. Isn't a good old abolishment in order right about now?

[Tiay]

just don't do it this summer, though. I'd hate to get caught in the crossfire.