US Constitution Discussion, Part 13: Amendment II

Perspectives on our world and our universe, how it works, what is happening, and why it happens. Whether by a hidden hand or natural laws, we come together to hash it out, and perhaps provide a little bit of education and enlightenment for others. This is a place for civil discussion. Please keep it that way.
Forum rules
1) Remain civil. Respect others' rights to their viewpoints, even if you believe them to be completely wrong.
2) Sourcing your information is highly recommended. Plagiarism will get you banned.
3) Please create a new thread for a new topic, even if you think it might not get a lot of responses. Do not create mega-threads.
4) If you think the subject of a thread is not important enough to merit a post, simply avoid posting in it. If enough people agree, it will fall off the page soon enough.
User avatar
adciv
Redshirt
Posts: 11723
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:20 am
Real Name: Lord Al-Briaca
Location: Middle of Nowhere, MD

Re: US Constitution Discussion, Part 13: Amendment II

Post by adciv » Sat Jan 30, 2010 12:47 am

Anyone seen the statistics for the homicide rate in Russia? It's about 4x that of the US. Course, even comparing pure numbers is difficult in that the homicide rate in the US is calculated differently than say, the UK.
Repensum Est Canicula
The most dangerous words from an Engineer: "I have an idea."
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." - Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
StruckingFuggle
Redshirt
Posts: 22166
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2003 6:18 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Austin / San Marcos, Tx

Re: US Constitution Discussion, Part 13: Amendment II

Post by StruckingFuggle » Sat Jan 30, 2010 3:17 am

collegestudent22 wrote:It does reduce almost all kinds of violent crime, however. There is a reason that the states with the lowest murder rates are also the states that allow firearms most freely.
A: Because murder is the only kind of violent crime, right?
A.5: Heck, it's the only kind of lethal violent crime, right?
B: Oh, so we're only talking about violent crime, now.
C: Does it really reduce crime, or does it merely drive moderately determined criminals elsewhere?


collegestudent22 wrote:I can point to many examples of more frequent firearm carrying reduces violent crime. Wyoming has the 5th lowest murder rate in the US and has some of the easiest access to concealed carry permits. The states with the most stringent laws have MUCH higher rates (see: NY). I don't know any stats for the rest of the world - but I would assume that they would be fairly close if they were to allow firearms in public as much as the US does in some states.
And firearms are the only factor of difference between the two, right? Surely so!

And really? You expect every conversation on the subject to go into a long discussion of what crimes exactly it reduces? "Reduces crime" is plenty - considering OVERALL crime rates are reduced. Sure, you can get into which kinds of crimes exactly are reduced - but that isn't really conducive to the argument.
It take issue with when the rhetoric seems to say it'll make you safer from everything, rather than some things. Sure, it's true it may reduce overall crime rates, but that's not, generally (it seems) what the speaker wants you to think, but rather that will, somehow, magically, reduce crime across the board.

For example, it wouldn't stop someone from robbing your property, stealing your car ... or even from killing you, in a moment of passion or with malice of forethought.
"He who lives by the sword dies by my arrow."

"In your histories, there are continual justifications for all manner of hellish actions. Claims of nobility and heritage and honor to cover up every bit of genocide, assassination, and massacre. At least the Horde is honest in their naked lust for power."

User avatar
collegestudent22
Redshirt
Posts: 6886
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: Gallifrey

Re: US Constitution Discussion, Part 13: Amendment II

Post by collegestudent22 » Sat Jan 30, 2010 5:17 am

StruckingFuggle wrote:
collegestudent22 wrote:It does reduce almost all kinds of violent crime, however. There is a reason that the states with the lowest murder rates are also the states that allow firearms most freely.
A: Because murder is the only kind of violent crime, right?
A.5: Heck, it's the only kind of lethal violent crime, right?
Because if I only use one example, all the rest are invalid, right?
B: Oh, so we're only talking about violent crime, now.
Since no one uses any weaponry in non-violent crimes, that would make sense. Unless that gun is going to protect you from someone stealing your identity from a phishing site all of a sudden?
C: Does it really reduce crime, or does it merely drive moderately determined criminals elsewhere?
Even assuming that it does so, the less determined criminals won't be committing their crimes. And so what if it does drive them elsewhere? If it drives them out of the US, I really don't care.
And firearms are the only factor of difference between the two, right? Surely so!
Of course not. But there is a VERY strong relationship between the number of firearms and the lower crime rates. There are obviously other factors - that's why Texas doesn't have the same numbers as Wyoming or Alaska might have. But that doesn't negate this relationship, and arguing that it does is ridiculous.

For example, it wouldn't stop someone from robbing your property, stealing your car ... or even from killing you, in a moment of passion or with malice of forethought.
Why wouldn't it? Perhaps they might still risk a robbery when they know I'm not home, or steal my car. But how would they kill me when I can draw, aim, and fire a weapon to prevent them. They would require a significant amount of malice and planning or be able to get me "with my pants down", which is highly unlikely.
Frédéric Bastiat wrote:And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.
Count Axel Oxenstierna wrote:Dost thou not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?

User avatar
StruckingFuggle
Redshirt
Posts: 22166
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2003 6:18 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Austin / San Marcos, Tx

Re: US Constitution Discussion, Part 13: Amendment II

Post by StruckingFuggle » Sat Jan 30, 2010 6:41 am

collegestudent22 wrote:Because if I only use one example, all the rest are invalid, right?
When you seem to use one example as a complete argument, kinda, yeah.

Since no one uses any weaponry in non-violent crimes, that would make sense. Unless that gun is going to protect you from someone stealing your identity from a phishing site all of a sudden?
Well, breaking and entering and robbery count as non-violent crimes, as does vanadlism, and a small host of other crimes that supposedly guns were supposed to magically deliver us from.

Even assuming that it does so, the less determined criminals won't be committing their crimes.
Hm, I'll grant you that it might deter some who wouldn't be displaced or interested in greater risk or in criminal evolution. I wonder, though, how many those are.

And so what if it does drive them elsewhere? If it drives them out of the US, I really don't care.
It doesn't necessarily have to be outside the U.S. It could be to areas known for less concentration of gun ownership, or other stats, especially if it is done by the states rather than the feds, especially (I'd imagine) near particularly diverse state lines. Also, I am quite saddened by your sudden and arbitrarily-bounded lack of care. Asshole.

Of course not. But there is a VERY strong relationship between the number of firearms and the lower crime rates. There are obviously other factors - that's why Texas doesn't have the same numbers as Wyoming or Alaska might have. But that doesn't negate this relationship, and arguing that it does is ridiculous.

Not trying to argue it doesn't, merely trying to argue that one is not, on its own, evidence of the other, and we can't even establish how big a difference it makes.

(Though I'm not trying to advocate that "not being perfect" is an argument against doing anything, that would be contrary to every pragmatic and meleorist bone in my body.)

Why wouldn't it? Perhaps they might still risk a robbery when they know I'm not home, or steal my car.
Exactly.

But how would they kill me when I can draw, aim, and fire a weapon to prevent them. They would require a significant amount of malice and planning or be able to get me "with my pants down", which is highly unlikely.
I see you either don't understand a crime of passion, or just figure you'll never be in such a situation. :p

As for malice, well ... yeah. Patience and/or planning. Or just a scoped rifle. Or poison. Or them 'getting the drop' on you, already armed (which, somehow, assuming forthought, I think is probably easier than you expect). Really, a gun is largely only practically good against direct, random, and largely unplanned violence, like being mugged by an idiot*.


*One must consider that by creating an environment of greater potential violence, one might cause at least a segment of criminals to account for and adjust to this environment, and then the possibility of it catching on and spreading. Perhaps a degree of the difference you see is only because it has not introduced sufficient stimulus to change the environment from an active agent's perspective, and thus any changes you see are the inevitable lag of the reactive side developing new defenses without attendant adjustment on the "other side".
"He who lives by the sword dies by my arrow."

"In your histories, there are continual justifications for all manner of hellish actions. Claims of nobility and heritage and honor to cover up every bit of genocide, assassination, and massacre. At least the Horde is honest in their naked lust for power."

User avatar
Deacon
Shining Adonis
Posts: 44204
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lakehills, TX

Re: US Constitution Discussion, Part 13: Amendment II

Post by Deacon » Sat Jan 30, 2010 5:32 pm

StruckingFuggle wrote:I'd believe it reduces some specific kinds of crime
Oh for fuck's sake, Fuggle. Yeah, I'm sure it doesn't do much to reduce, say, Enron-type white collar crime. But it sure as fuck does reduce violent crime. A heavily armed populace is a deterrent to criminals. I don't know how to come to terms with the idea that you disbelieve it.
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922

User avatar
StruckingFuggle
Redshirt
Posts: 22166
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2003 6:18 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Austin / San Marcos, Tx

Re: US Constitution Discussion, Part 13: Amendment II

Post by StruckingFuggle » Sat Jan 30, 2010 8:01 pm

Deacon wrote:Oh for fuck's sake, Fuggle. Yeah, I'm sure it doesn't do much to reduce, say, Enron-type white collar crime. But it sure as fuck does reduce violent crime. A heavily armed populace is a deterrent to criminals. I don't know how to come to terms with the idea that you disbelieve it.
oh ffs. "certain kinds of violent crime" - and the amount of actual reduction that's actual and sustainable reduction is still suspect (due to displacement and the potential for oversaturation weakening herd immunity by strengthening the threat via 'evolution').

I'm not saying it has no effect, I'm saying it's not the panacea you(r lazy and selfish asses) try to suggest.

Oh, additionally - others, such as cs22, are suggesting that prevalence of guns will reduce certain kinds of nonviolent crime, such as breaking and entering and car theft, too.
"He who lives by the sword dies by my arrow."

"In your histories, there are continual justifications for all manner of hellish actions. Claims of nobility and heritage and honor to cover up every bit of genocide, assassination, and massacre. At least the Horde is honest in their naked lust for power."

User avatar
collegestudent22
Redshirt
Posts: 6886
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: Gallifrey

Re: US Constitution Discussion, Part 13: Amendment II

Post by collegestudent22 » Sun Jan 31, 2010 6:28 am

StruckingFuggle wrote: Oh, additionally - others, such as cs22, are suggesting that prevalence of guns will reduce certain kinds of nonviolent crime, such as breaking and entering and car theft, too.
B+E? Maybe. Unless I know you are not home or unarmed, I think they probably won't risk it. Granted, it isn't too hard to find that out, but it does a bit more than an alarm system by itself. And I never claimed that it would prevent car theft - unless you are talking about car theft like in the movies. "Get outta the car! Get outta the car or I'll shoot!"-type stuff.

And really, I'm looking at violent crime. I don't know where you got the idea that I thought it would seriously affect non-violent crime.
Frédéric Bastiat wrote:And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.
Count Axel Oxenstierna wrote:Dost thou not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?

User avatar
StruckingFuggle
Redshirt
Posts: 22166
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2003 6:18 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Austin / San Marcos, Tx

Re: US Constitution Discussion, Part 13: Amendment II

Post by StruckingFuggle » Sun Jan 31, 2010 9:21 am

collegestudent22 wrote:B+E? Maybe. Unless I know you are not home or unarmed, I think they probably won't risk it. Granted, it isn't too hard to find that out, but it does a bit more than an alarm system by itself.
Yes - it doesn't deter so much as just constrain. Which admittedly will result in a bit of a reduction, yeah.
And I never claimed that it would prevent car theft - unless you are talking about car theft like in the movies. "Get outta the car! Get outta the car or I'll shoot!"-type stuff.
Yeah, I mean like a parked car, not a carjacking.
And really, I'm looking at violent crime. I don't know where you got the idea that I thought it would seriously affect non-violent crime.
You know, I don't really, either.
"He who lives by the sword dies by my arrow."

"In your histories, there are continual justifications for all manner of hellish actions. Claims of nobility and heritage and honor to cover up every bit of genocide, assassination, and massacre. At least the Horde is honest in their naked lust for power."

User avatar
Deacon
Shining Adonis
Posts: 44204
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lakehills, TX

Re: US Constitution Discussion, Part 13: Amendment II

Post by Deacon » Sun Jan 31, 2010 9:19 pm

collegestudent22 wrote:B+E? Maybe. Unless I know you are not home or unarmed, I think they probably won't risk it.
What the hell are you talking about?

And yes, being armed can certainly stop a carjacking, and everyone being armed can certainly drop carjacking almost completely. But deigning to allow individual law-abiding human beings to exercise their right to defend themselves isn't the only piece of the crime-reduction puzzle, of course. You also have the backward cultures in which some of these thugs are raised, the non-deterrent and respect-earner that prisons these days have become, etc.
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922

User avatar
collegestudent22
Redshirt
Posts: 6886
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: Gallifrey

Re: US Constitution Discussion, Part 13: Amendment II

Post by collegestudent22 » Mon Feb 01, 2010 5:42 am

Deacon wrote:
collegestudent22 wrote:B+E? Maybe. Unless I know you are not home or unarmed, I think they probably won't risk it.
What the hell are you talking about?
It won't matter if you are armed if you aren't there to stop me from breaking and entering. However, if the criminal thinks you are home, regardless of wether you are or not, they might hold off.
Frédéric Bastiat wrote:And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.
Count Axel Oxenstierna wrote:Dost thou not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?

User avatar
Deacon
Shining Adonis
Posts: 44204
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lakehills, TX

Re: US Constitution Discussion, Part 13: Amendment II

Post by Deacon » Mon Feb 01, 2010 6:27 am

They might, sure, but you're talking as though you're the one making the decision, and that you've put a lot of planning and time into figuring out what they've got, what routines they follow, etc, and as you sit there behind your computer trying to be all hypothetically logical and such. It's not at all uncommon in the cases of home invasions for the house to be somewhat less unoccupied than you're suggesting.
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922

User avatar
collegestudent22
Redshirt
Posts: 6886
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: Gallifrey

Re: US Constitution Discussion, Part 13: Amendment II

Post by collegestudent22 » Mon Feb 01, 2010 8:47 am

Deacon wrote:It's not at all uncommon in the cases of home invasions for the house to be somewhat less unoccupied than you're suggesting.
I am aware of this. I am hypothesizing, and I fully admit that I could be wrong, that if more people were armed, the number of incidences where the home was occupied would be lowered. It could of course be helped by a commercial showing a person breaking in and getting shot, instead of "let the alarm people call me as if they can actually stop the guy from doing anything immediately".
Frédéric Bastiat wrote:And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.
Count Axel Oxenstierna wrote:Dost thou not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?

User avatar
StruckingFuggle
Redshirt
Posts: 22166
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2003 6:18 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Austin / San Marcos, Tx

Re: US Constitution Discussion, Part 13: Amendment II

Post by StruckingFuggle » Mon Feb 01, 2010 8:57 am

collegestudent22 wrote:It could of course be helped by a commercial showing a person breaking in and getting shot, instead of "let the alarm people call me as if they can actually stop the guy from doing anything immediately".
Because people totally don't actually leave when the alarm suddenly goes off. Nope.

Which isn't to say it's a perfect solution (though I'd bet there's a lot of overlap between "people it won't shoo off" and "people who can invest some planning in it"), just that I disagree with your apparent implication that it barely or doesn't work at all.
"He who lives by the sword dies by my arrow."

"In your histories, there are continual justifications for all manner of hellish actions. Claims of nobility and heritage and honor to cover up every bit of genocide, assassination, and massacre. At least the Horde is honest in their naked lust for power."

User avatar
collegestudent22
Redshirt
Posts: 6886
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: Gallifrey

Re: US Constitution Discussion, Part 13: Amendment II

Post by collegestudent22 » Mon Feb 01, 2010 9:59 am

StruckingFuggle wrote: Because people totally don't actually leave when the alarm suddenly goes off. Nope.
Anyone with half a brain would realize that they have around five to seven minutes before the police are even close enough to cut off any of their potential routes of escape. Although, I will admit many would-be criminals DON'T have half a brain - or a quarter for that matter.
I disagree with your apparent implication that it barely or doesn't work at all.
Oh, I know it works. I just don't think it works on either determined criminals or the smart ones. And you know, as they say, only the stupid ones end up in jail.
Frédéric Bastiat wrote:And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.
Count Axel Oxenstierna wrote:Dost thou not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?

User avatar
collegestudent22
Redshirt
Posts: 6886
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: Gallifrey

Re: US Constitution Discussion, Part 13: Amendment II

Post by collegestudent22 » Mon Feb 01, 2010 12:12 pm

Frédéric Bastiat wrote:And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.
Count Axel Oxenstierna wrote:Dost thou not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [bot], Common Crawl (Research) and 1 guest