Gun Control

[Archy1221]

29 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

Agreed! Anyone who sells a gun to a mass shooter - death penalty. No appeal.

 

Any gun owner whose legally purchased gun is used to commit murder - death penalty. No appeal.

 

Any manufacturer of a gun used to commit mass murder - the entire board gets the death penalty. No appeal.

 

Anyone holding stock in any company who manufactures guns or ammunition used to commit mass murder - death penalty. No appeal.

 

I think we're on the same page here.

[Archy1221]

26 minutes ago, Lorewarn said:

the data doesn't indicate that harsher punishments are a useful deterrent for violent crimes

What data is that?  
 

 

[Archy1221]

31 minutes ago, Lorewarn said:

re: trump, not exactly

https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/27/health/cdc-gun-research-walensky/index.html
 

In 2018, then President Donald Trump signed a government spending bill that allowed the CDC to conduct gun violence research, and in 2020 and 2021 Congress agreed to millions of dollars for gun violence research for the first time in decades, allocating $25 million split between the CDC and the US National Institutes of Health. 

Walensky said much of CDC’s research will be engaged in understanding the root causes of gun violence.

[Lorewarn]

24 minutes ago, DefenderAO said:

Dealing with effects will not solve the problem.  

 

 

 

Are you interested in things that might not completely solve the root problem but might, along the way, still end up saving lives? 

 

In the 1960s most state's legal drinking limits were .15 to .10 and more than half of all car accident deaths were due to drunk driving. Now nothing solved the core issue of the moral rot of the pluralistic relativistic god-hating progressives leading us down a path of illness and decay, and that's still an unsolved disease, but at the same time, we raised the legal drinking age, we lowered the legal BAC levels, we instituted more comprehensive DUI laws and accountability, implemented sobriety checkpoints, and so on and so forth.

 

So while we're still apparently sliding into a mentally ill and progressively filthy spiritual decay, we also have 83% less people killed by drunk drivers than we had 40 years ago. 

 

Your participation in this thread is akin to somebody with diabetes begging for insulin while you refuse to even entertain the idea, instead insisting that the only way to treat their diabetes is to stop being so fat and eating so much. People are looking for tangible solutions, not abstract sanctimonious condemnations.

 

[Archy1221]

9 minutes ago, Lorewarn said:

, we instituted more comprehensive DUI laws and accountability,

So harsher penalties….do work? 

[DefenderAO]

4 minutes ago, Lorewarn said:

 

 

 

Are you interested in things that might not completely solve the root problem but might, along the way, still end up saving lives? 

 

In the 1960s most state's legal drinking limits were .15 to .10 and more than half of all car accident deaths were due to drunk driving. Now nothing solved the core issue of the moral rot of the pluralistic relativistic god-hating progressives leading us down a path of illness and decay, and that's still an unsolved disease, but at the same time, we raised the legal drinking age, we lowered the legal BAC levels, we instituted more comprehensive DUI laws and accountability, implemented sobriety checkpoints, and so on and so forth.

 

So while we're still apparently sliding into a mentally ill and progressively filthy spiritual decay, we also have 83% less people killed by drunk drivers than we had 40 years ago. 

 

Your participation in this thread is akin to somebody with diabetes begging for insulin while you refuse to even entertain the idea, instead insisting that the only way to treat their diabetes is to stop being so fat and eating so much. People are looking for tangible solutions, not abstract sanctimonious condemnations.

 

If there is a viable proposal, it should be considered.  If it 's just an emotionally reflexive response pandering to a voter base, with no credence or credibility, it's a waste. 

 

What proposal would save lives, cause non law abiding people to abide by the law, and keep law abiding citizens free from purchase or ownership encumbrance, while also future-proofing for any overreach?

[Lorewarn]

38 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

So harsher penalties….do work? 

 

It depends on a lot of factors.

 

If there's a binary of no punishment vs an actual punishment, then yes there is an effective deterrent at play. Before the 1970's driving drunk was rarely punished and was largely seen as something of a 'boys will be boys' right of passage.

 

Increasing the severity of the punishment does little to deter crime, and even less so in terms of conscious and/or violent crimes, as the people committing these have little to no knowledge of the sanctions, while more time in prison can often lead to higher rates of recidivism.

 

I should also add in the case of DUIs as an example, other major factors on behalf of MAAD and others were highly focused on information and awareness. The most effective element in deterrence isn't the harshness of the penalty but the certainty of a penalty at all.

 

In 2000, the first major systematic review of this body of work came out. The findings were surprising. Scholars did not find that the experience of imprisonment reduced re-offending. Quite the contrary. Compared to people who had committed similar crimes but who had received community sanctions, those who had been imprisoned re-offended much more frequently. Later systematic reviews found the same thing. In fact, the latest review of the available evidence looked at 57 rigorous studies and found not only that imprisonment fails to decrease re-offending but that it actually increases crime. This review concluded that incarceration raises the rate of re-offending to somewhere between five and 14 percent.

By and large, studies do not find that incarceration has a specific deterrent effect. In perhaps the most perfectly titled paper, “Prisons Do Not Reduce Recidivism: Ignoring the High Costs of Science,” criminologist Francis Cullen and colleagues clearly state that “incarcerating offenders is not a magic bullet with special powers to invoke such dread that offenders refrain from recidivating when released.” “If anything,” they add, “it appears that imprisonment is a crude strategy that does not address the underlying causes of recidivism and thus that has no, or even criminogenic, effects on offenders.”

 

https://lithub.com/politicians-love-punishment-but-does-it-actually-reduce-crime/

 

https://www.house.mn.gov/hrd/pubs/deterrence.pdf

 

https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/business-law/do-harsher-punishments-deter-crime

[BigRedBuster]

 

[BigRedBuster]

3 hours ago, DefenderAO said:

You think there are no gun laws?  Really?

Sure there are.  But, one political side thinks there shouldn’t be. 

[Archy1221]

6 hours ago, Lorewarn said:

 

It depends on a lot of factors.

 

If there's a binary of no punishment vs an actual punishment, then yes there is an effective deterrent at play. Before the 1970's driving drunk was rarely punished and was largely seen as something of a 'boys will be boys' right of passage.

 

Increasing the severity of the punishment does little to deter crime, and even less so in terms of conscious and/or violent crimes, as the people committing these have little to no knowledge of the sanctions, while more time in prison can often lead to higher rates of recidivism.

 

I should also add in the case of DUIs as an example, other major factors on behalf of MAAD and others were highly focused on information and awareness. The most effective element in deterrence isn't the harshness of the penalty but the certainty of a penalty at all.

 

 

 

 

https://lithub.com/politicians-love-punishment-but-does-it-actually-reduce-crime/

 

https://www.house.mn.gov/hrd/pubs/deterrence.pdf

 

https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/business-law/do-harsher-punishments-deter-crime

Thanks for the links..

 

from the MN House link.  They admit to having no idea what role prison plays in criminals being criminal again.  However I will play along and agree that a longer prison sentence “may” play a role in future crime for that person.  So f#&%ing what.   For the ten years or more being served for gun crime they won’t be committing any public crimes.  And with re-offending rates the way they are, it’s more than likely people who commit crimes with guns will do it again with a “lenient” sentence or community service. 

 

“Prison may be a factor in increasing the likelihood that an individual will reoffend, but differences between individuals sent to prison and those placed under supervision and kept in the community make it difficult to determine how significant a role imprisonment plays.”

 

“Changes in severity have little effect if offenders do not expect to caught
In addition, the severity of punishment only deters crime when the certainty of being caught and punished is high enough.39 In other words, severity of punishment, independent of the certainty of that punishment, is not associated with lower rates of crime.40 If an offender does not expect to be caught, the severity of the punishment does not factor into any decisions.”

 

So more policing I guess   I might add into the certainty discussion, that if an offender believes that it’s certain “if caught” the penalty will be low to the point the risk/reward ratio is well in favor of reward, the offender is going to commit the crime.  Certainty plays that way also. 

[ZRod]

8 hours ago, DefenderAO said:

I've never seen a gun kill anyone.  

 

Obese people - person's fault, not spoon.  

DWI car wreck - person's fault, not car.  

Shooting - take the guns.

Here we go again...

 

Cars and spoons have multiple uses other than feeding and crashing. Although it's lovely that you pointed out driving drunk gets your license revoked for a period of time, should probably do that with guns too.

 

The only use for a gun is to destroy. 

[DefenderAO]

5 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

Sure there are.  But, one political side thinks there shouldn’t be. 

The mentally ill should be exempt. 

[Archy1221]

4 minutes ago, ZRod said:

The only use for a gun is to destroy

It can also be a deterrent without being fired.  Which is considered a use. 

[DefenderAO]

6 minutes ago, ZRod said:

Here we go again...

 

Cars and spoons have multiple uses other than feeding and crashing. Although it's lovely that you pointed out driving drunk gets your license revoked for a period of time, should probably do that with guns too.

 

The only use for a gun is to destroy. 

I’d suspect some folks throughout history, namely ones put in ovens and gas chambers, would carry a different perspective. 

Defend what is good and the innocent from the deeply disturbed who don’t value life.  

 

[ColoradoHusk]

35 minutes ago, DefenderAO said:

I’d suspect some folks throughout history, namely ones put in ovens and gas chambers, would carry a different perspective. 

Defend what is good and the innocent from the deeply disturbed who don’t value life.  

 

I agree that deeply disturbed people who don’t value life don’t deserve any defense.

 

I am curious of where on your Venn diagram you would put “transgendered people” with “deeply disturbed people”.