Crime tolerance

[Leitmotif]

Cant say I agree about the guns. I want to live in a country without guns. If that means starting with the citizens, then so be it. Less guns for the robbers to steal. Problem is that then the only people with guns will be the robbers. But that is a price we must pay for a short while

Robbers don't *have* to steal guns. Estimates put illegal guns in SA at around 4 million. That's almost 4 times the number of licensed gun owners. Licensed guns that are stolen are recovered in the majority of cases.

We live in africa. What defines africa? Poverty and war. War comes with guns. There are probably more firearms on this continent than anywhere else in the world. So we need border control. We need the police to stop 'losing' confiscated illegal firearms. Because believe it or not, most illegal guns in circulation have been through the police.

Criminals want guns. They will get them. I'm not prepared to be a victim. Your blind sheep stance costs lives every single day, and it will never work. Criminals will not give up the tools of fear.

Don't try and take away the objects. Punish the misdeeds of those who use them. I want the freedom to have a gun, and the security never to have to use it. One follows from the other.

 

[Gnome]

It would be foolish to want to live in a country without guns while they still exist in the world. I would feel decidedly uncomfortable with the government (any government) being the only one with guns.

Yep, Banning guns is the start of a Dictatorship/Communism. UK all guns are outbanned Law man or otherwise which is supposed to keep guns from Civilians but it obviously doesn't work since they still have large number of civilians killed by gunshots.

The problem isn't only the guns, it's the way someone who defends him/herself or other people gets delt with. I read in the newspaper about a guy who catches criminals robbing a bank armed with weapons. He shoots and kills them, now he's on trail for murder, WTF?

 

[noxibox]

It is called the "broken window syndrome" iirc. New York used it to great effect

Did it though? Much was made of the alleged effect of this policy, but it was never clear that it was actually this policy that made the difference.

 

[noxibox]

The problem is the rights of criminal outweighing that of the victim. This liberal ideal of a criminal somehow being a bigger victim.

For example, this insane excuse that poverty leads someone to murder another person for his shoes,cellphone or whatever.

It might result in robbery, but could not excuse murdering or severely injuring someone.

There are rights meant to protect everyone from abuse by the state. That does not include any claim that the criminal is the victim.

 

[Dave A]

Did it though? Much was made of the alleged effect of this policy, but it was never clear that it was actually this policy that made the difference.

Got another suggested cause? There is no doubt that major crime plummeted with the drive. Something else changed as well?

If there is one thing the Yanks are good at, it's over-analysing stuff. If they reckon it was the sleaze drive, it probably was.

 

[Alan]

The violent nature of crime in our country point to this - criminals want us to be so afraid of them that we offer no resistance - and sadly, it is often foolish to resist.

I don't entirely agree with the fear perspective. I think a lack of value for human life and a lack of consequence for their actions are far more prevalent in a criminals mind. There comes a point where criminals will have gone to far. Victims will get to the stage were they will feel that there is nothing left lose. In all probability you are going to get killed so why not go down fighting. There is a limit to people's tolerance.


Secondly we need to address the problem from when people are young. Starting with the parents. A good dose of values and discipline. When I was a child and I considered doing something criminal, I had been taught that it was wrong and if that was not enough of a deterrent knowing that I would recieve a good smack certainly persuaded me.Same with the schools. Kids today get away with murder literally. Bring back corporal punishment, after all schools are a lot more violent today. I would rather get a smack than stabbed.

 

[noxibox]

Cant say I agree about the guns. I want to live in a country without guns. If that means starting with the citizens, then so be it. Less guns for the robbers to steal. Problem is that then the only people with guns will be the robbers. But that is a price we must pay for a short while

I'm not inherently opposed to making guns hard to get if they're hard for everyone to get and even the police do not normally carry guns. Even in the UK we've seen the consequences of the police carrying guns and it isn't even standard equipment for all police. I am opposed to punishing citizens for defending themselves when threatened or attack. And that is the situation in the UK. You're most likely to get attacked at knifepoint or just hit over the head with a brick, but you have no right to carry basic defensive weapons and even fighting back barehanded without the benefit of any training can get you arrested and prosecuted. The government actually condemns people who fight back when their homes are invaded.

If I catch a stranger in my home I am going to attack them and the state better be on my side when I protect my home.

 

[noxibox]

Got another suggested cause? There is no doubt that major crime plummeted with the drive. Something else changed as well?

If there is one thing the Yanks are good at, it's over-analysing stuff. If they reckon it was the sleaze drive, it probably was.

The police claimed it was that, other parties claimed it was other factors. I know I originally thought this zero tolerance thing had worked until other parties started presenting a range of things that changed in New York at the same, as well as evidence that police action may have actually caused problems.

I can suggest another possible cause - general community upliftment.

There is no doubt crime went down. The factors that caused it are in doubt.

They? Being the police who got to bust heads?

 

[chiskop]

Got another suggested cause? There is no doubt that major crime plummeted with the drive. Something else changed as well?

Try this:
Perhaps the most dramatic effect of legalized abortion, and one that would take years to reveal itself, was its impact on crime.


Other criticisms of Zero Tolerance, if anyone's interested:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_tolerance#Is_the_zero_tolerance_policy_efficient.3F
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixing_Broken_Windows#Critics_of_the_theory
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/060904ta_talk_gladwell

 

[Alan]

I never thought of that. Kill the the criminals before they are born. Don't even give them the chance to do crime. I never new you were pro death penalty.

 

[Leitmotif]

Yep, Banning guns is the start of a Dictatorship/Communism.
The problem isn't only the guns, it's the way someone who defends him/herself or other people gets dealt with. I read in the newspaper about a guy who catches criminals robbing a bank armed with weapons. He shoots and kills them, now he's on trial for murder, WTF?

Quoted for Great Truth™. This is part of what worries me about disarmament... why go after the guys that do fight back, and do make criminals think twice? Are they trying to create a victim mindset?

Also: in every state that's gone despotic, there was first gun registration, then gun confiscation, then total control. When taking control of a country, a usurping power will first find the gun registry and then eliminate potential resistance.

Machiavelli said: arm your citizens, for when your power is under threat, they will aid you.
He also said: disarm your conquered enemies, lest they rise against you.

Why is our government afraid of it's citizens being able to defend themselves? Why are we being treated like enemies of the state for wanting to protect our rights to life and liberty? To freedom from opression and intimidation?

 

[Leitmotif]

alanf

AlanF: for God's sake, read the material before firing off your half-assed snide comments. Here's just one argument:
abortion = less mouths to feed, especially among poor = less poverty = less need for crime.

Women should have the right to choose. Provided no-one forces them, they have the right to choose their own future.

 

[Alan]

 

[JStrike]

The effect of abortion on crime is well known. Read Freakonomics for the laymans version

 

[IanC]

Problem is that then the only people with guns will be the robbers. But that is a price we must pay for a short while

I'm not so sure banning guns = less gun crime. The UK has the most draconian gun laws in the world, but this and this still happens.

 

[Alan]

Leitmotif: At least we agree on S.A gun laws

 

[kilo39]

Gun ownership is tightly controlled in the UK, but anyone reading the newspapers or watching TV would think that the streets were full of gun-toting criminals. The overall level of gun crime remains low, but it is certainly true that in some areas guns are a feature of everyday life, and that over the last four years crime involving the use of some kind of gun has been on the increase.

The welcome of the ex-eastern block into the EU - also brought guns to the UK (and people with little regard for unarmed bobbies.)

The drug wars encouraged guns (more so the bobbies are unarmed.)

Said it more than once: law and order is a individual contract - chosen to be ignored by some or many as the case may be.

 

[IanC]

Gun ownership is tightly controlled in the UK,

That's putting it mildly.

The welcome of the ex-eastern block into the EU - also brought guns to the UK (and people with little regard for unarmed bobbies.)

The drug wars encouraged guns (more so the bobbies are unarmed.)

The average PC Plod was asked whether or not they wished to be armed and almost all turned it down and favoured leaving things to CO19, formerly SO19

Said it more than once: law and order is a individual contract - chosen to be ignored by some or many as the case may be.

You haven't expanded on this so I'm not sure we're in agreement ... my view is that the state took the mandate to dispense violence on our behalf otherwise we'd go straight back to the law of the feud, vendetta, honour killing, etc. I do, however, think the state is beginning to renege on its part of this contract, hence the high number of vigilante killings. When the police and judiciary become ineffectual the law of the feud isn't far away.

 

[kilo39]

Said it more than once: law and order is a individual contract - chosen to be ignored by some or many as the case may be.

I'm trying to say - you cannot have a policeman watching every citizen and on every corner... it is up to individuals to obey the law willingly - because they see the moral correctness of this - through upbringing and opportunity - in most instances crime is an individual choice - the criminal could plot as easily to get ahead legally as he does at his present job, ie, criminal.

 

[jontyB]

Incredibly no body seems to be referring to the doccie: "Bowling for Columbine"

In excerpt in that movie shows the narator go to Canada where they have more guns than people, yet they have amongst the lowest gun murders in the world.