Finland is Winland

[Rostere]

Yeha, because criminals have never killed unarmed victims.

 

Besdies, why are you blaming the victim? they didn't push the criminal into anything. That is 100% on the criminal. Period.

 

The moment the criminal shows up to commit a crime - gun or not - they are the ones who 'pushed' themselves 9and you the victim) into a dangerous situation.

 

By your logic, the police shouldn't have guns either because that forces criminals to have guns too. And, why should police bother to wear bullet proof fests when that 'pushes' criminals to use 'cop killing' bullets.

 

My point is, what are you going to do with your gun when you are robbed? Do you think that you face better odds if you try to draw a gun when someone is already pointing one at you? Even if we suppose you're right and life is like a silly Western movie and you manage to draw your gun and shoot who's robbing you, you have injured and maybe killed another person. From my point of view, that is definitely a bad thing. I don't believe in evil, people are shaped into what they are by how they were raised in their childhood and by society. Surely, you must agree that countries can't start nuking each other as soon as one declares war on the other. In the very same way do we humans also have some sort of responsibility towards each other.

 

The last passage here shows that you're a little biased from which country you're from. Where I live, not all criminals have guns/ have the opportunity to choose the gun they like.

 

I don't see how not having guns somehow protects you from gun toting criminals more thna having agun does. This myth that criminals will only shoot you if you have a gun is just propaganda from extreme anti gun groups. It's not logical. They're gun toting criminals for a reason - it's because they believe guns give them an advantage over their non gun toting victims.. and, they're right.

 

P.S. I'm not a gun loving maniac either. I've handled one gun and that was target practice at summer camp. I own no guns, and I don't plan too either; but this belief that banning gun s= Happy Happy Land is an absolute myth. Violent crime/murder/etc. have beena round much longer than guns existed to be sure.

 

It is in fact very logical that you are more likely to be shot if you're armed. But I've already explained that.

 

I do not think that the absence of guns will make crime disappear. It's just that having a gun makes it easier for anyone to rob anyone they like, and also increases the amount of possible collateral damage. What if anyone could acquire heavier weapons as easily as they could buy a gun? Imagine what kind of school shootings you would have then. Compare that to a country where pointy sticks were the only common weapons. You certainly wouldn't see headlines like "Boy massacres 32 with pointy stick in [insert random high school]", or "Criminals armed with dreadfully pointy sticks rob bank for $17.3 million". You might think of a country without weapons as an utopia, but I know that it is possible to at least take a step in that direction.

[Volourn]

"you manage to draw your gun and shoot who's robbing you, you have injured and maybe killed another person. From my point of view, that is definitely a bad thing."

 

Nope. Self defense is never a bad thing. If the robber wasn't a robber the situation never would have occur. Stop blaming society for individual's action. Such sob stories don't make me cry.

 

 

"The last passage here shows that you're a little biased from which country you're from. Where I live, not all criminals have guns/ have the opportunity to choose the gun they like."

 

This doens't even make sense. Whata re you talking about? Nowhere did I say that all criminals have guns. In fact, most 'criminals' in my country likely don't have guns. Your point being what?

 

 

 

"It is in fact very logical that you are more likely to be shot if you're armed. But I've already explained that."

 

L0L 'Facts'. Proof, please. Outside of actual war, I doubt this is true. In fact, even in war it's dubious consideirng the number of civilians who get killed.

 

 

 

"It's just that having a gun makes it easier for anyone to rob anyone they like"

 

Except things like robbery, and theft have been around for AGES on grand scale well before the invention of the gun. In fact, if I were to make an educated guess, I'd say that robbery/theft as far as frequency per 1000 people is down compared to pre gun history.

 

You keep implying that without guns it'll be Happy happy Land with no violence mass or otherwise. yet, human history disproves that since war has existed for ever. So has banditry. So has murder.

Edited October 3, 2008 by Volourn

[Walsingham]

I'd tend to agree with Rostere, but also have to take into account relatives who live in South Africa. There the criminals really are heavily armed and one friend has had to fight off - on his own - three home invasions. No kidding. However, he acknowledges that the situiation sucks, and the only real fix is to address where the buggers are coming from. He can't fight them all single handed. It's amazing he hasn't been killed.

 

I have also had two friends and relatives who have been shot while armed themselves.

[Volourn]

And, we've all heard stories of being shot who weren't armed with guns. *shrug*

[Rostere]

This doens't even make sense. Whata re you talking about? Nowhere did I say that all criminals have guns. In fact, most 'criminals' in my country likely don't have guns. Your point being what?

 

I was adressing the fact that you seemed to believe that criminals could always match the police in an arms race. I don't know how common guns and ammunition are in your country, but based on your reasoning it seems like they are.

 

L0L 'Facts'. Proof, please. Outside of actual war, I doubt this is true. In fact, even in war it's dubious consideirng the number of civilians who get killed.

 

 

Well, I believe that it is your stance here is that runs contrary to common sense. If you're not armed or try to fight, you are also less likely to get hurt. I'd like some proof from you if you disagree with that. If you were some hoodlum and robbed someone, would you rather shoot a person who also threatens you with a gun or someone unarmed?

 

Except things like robbery, and theft have been around for AGES on grand scale well before the invention of the gun. In fact, if I were to make an educated guess, I'd say that robbery/theft as far as frequency per 1000 people is down compared to pre gun history.

 

You keep implying that without guns it'll be Happy happy Land with no violence mass or otherwise. yet, human history disproves that since war has existed for ever. So has banditry. So has murder.

 

I'm completely aware that robbery and theft have been around for quite a while. However, you must also take into consideration the many reasons crime should be lower today compared to in historic times. Today, we have a prison system that works towards rehabilitating criminals, public education, psychologists, homeless shelters - an entire social safety net which prevents people from becoming criminals. The best way to keep people from becoming criminals is to make sure they have a good childhood. I'm sure you wouldn't give the weapons we have today to people living 2000 years ago. Imagine the damage they would cause in their society!

 

I'm not implying that "without guns it'll be Happy happy Land with no violence mass or otherwise". However, I do think that the number of people killed or wounded unintentionally during a heist, theft or whatever will decrease. The number of people killed by non- professional criminals and psychopaths will also decrease.

 

Nope. Self defense is never a bad thing. If the robber wasn't a robber the situation never would have occur. Stop blaming society for individual's action. Such sob stories don't make me cry.

 

You have a very inhumane opinion on this matter, perhaps because you forget to ask yourself why the robber is a robber? The best way to protect yourself against criminals is not to try to shoot them John Wayne- style when they are robbing you, it is to make sure nobody becomes a criminal in the first place. Would you also like to legalize all drugs, since drug addiction is also the result of an individual's action? Would you decapitate yourself if you have an headache (since it's obviously the head's fault and you have the right to defend the rest of your body)?

 

Most of the people who live outside the law don't do that because they were born in a well-to-do family, had parents who could take care of them, had a happy childhood and then became criminals just because they felt like it. We are all partly responsible for shaping the world we live in.

 

If you're hanging on a cliff's edge, and I'm standing above you, and you ask me for help, and I refuse to lift you up just because you have mud on your hands and because I have no legal obligation to do so, would you consider that an act of evil? "Right" and "Wrong" is not solely defined by what the law says. You also have to use your head. Just because it isn't prohibited does not mean it's not bad (and certainly not that it is good).

 

Suppose you were a Russian marshal of the Strategic Rocket forces during the Cold War. One day, you are surprised to learn that american ICBMs are coming in from all directions, and will blast your entire country to smithereens and not leave a single survivor. Would you press the button and launch your own ICBMs on their pre- set targets, destroying the whole of humanity in the process? Please ignore any historic/ factual inaccuracies as it's a hypothetical situation, I'm only interested in your answer.

 

 

KILLING AND WOUNDING OTHER PEOPLE = NOT GOOD

 

I'd tend to agree with Rostere, but also have to take into account relatives who live in South Africa. There the criminals really are heavily armed and one friend has had to fight off - on his own - three home invasions. No kidding. However, he acknowledges that the situiation sucks, and the only real fix is to address where the buggers are coming from. He can't fight them all single handed. It's amazing he hasn't been killed.

 

True, there are also those situations where it's not realistic to ban guns since the law won't have the resources to enforce the ban. I bet it's hard being a country on a poor continent with destabilized neighbours.

Edited October 3, 2008 by Rostere

[Aram]

I own so many guns. What's up with that.

[random n00b]

And I own none. How's that fair I ask you?

[~Di]

You have a very inhumane opinion on this matter, perhaps because you forget to ask yourself why the robber is a robber? ...

Most of the people who live outside the law don't do that because they were born in a well-to-do family, had parents who could take care of them, had a happy childhood and then became criminals just because they felt like it. We are all partly responsible for shaping the world we live in.

 

Just butting in here for a moment. I think you have rather a romanticized concept of felons as people whom society has tread upon, and who have no choice but to turn to a life of crime. Of course there are people from poor and abusive families that have turned to crime; but most people, the vast majority of people from poor and abusive families do not turn to crime. And frankly I suspect if there were statistics available to segregate criminals by their upbringing you'd find the at least half, perhaps more, of these criminals came from middle-class families, were not abused and decided to rob people and steal cars because it was just easier to take other people's stuff than it was to get a job and earn their own stuff. Simple as that.

 

I've worked closely with police departments in the past, and trust me when I say that white, middle-class felons were the rule, not the exception. Crime is not forced upon a person because of environment. Crime is chosen by a person because of his/her own narcissism and lack of conscience; it's simply easier to take what one wants than to work for it. Period. Blaming society for the choices made by individuals is illogical and for the most part is demonstrably untrue.

 

Okay, back the regularly scheduled "guns are good/guns are bad" discussion!

[mkreku]

Crime is chosen by a person because of his/her own narcissism and lack of conscience; it's simply easier to take what one wants than to work for it. Period. Blaming society for the choices made by individuals is illogical and for the most part is demonstrably untrue.

Untrue. Criminality is much higher in poor areas of society than in rich areas of society. This is the fact in every city, in every country all over the world. The more a person feels rejected by the society he/she lives in, the easier it is for said person to commit a crime against that society. Most people don't become criminals because they are too lazy to work (which is what you're insinuating), it's because they feel they are being treated unfairly by society and thus doesn't care for society. Rich people could add a few million to their bank accounts by robbing banks too, instead of having to work 12 hours every day. So why don't they?

[Aram]

And I own none. How's that fair I ask you?

You should definitely buy some. Then we'll both have some.

[Volourn]

"You have a very inhumane opinion on this matter"

 

Sweet. I'm glad you think I'm not human. Dehumanize me more.

 

I'm not gonna apologize for calling a spade a spade. A murderer is a murderer, and ther eis no excuse for it. And, no, being abused, or abandoned when you were a kid is NOT a good excuse.

 

 

"I don't know how common guns and ammunition are in your country, but based on your reasoning it seems like they are."

 

My country is not 'full of guns'. We have our gun collectors; but nowhere enar the level of the States. And, we certainly arne't crime ridden. Well, Toronto is pretty close. Hehe.

 

 

"If you're not armed or try to fight, you are also less likely to get hurt. I'd like some proof from you if you disagree with that. If you were some hoodlum and robbed someone, would you rather shoot a person who also threatens you with a gun or someone unarmed?"

 

Tell that to the unarmed civilians who usually led the death rates in nearly any war. And, if youa re ahoodlum youlikely have no problem killing shooting unarmed people. I think you hold the hoodlum's morals in such high esteem, and I don't know why. The fact said hoodlum has a gun and is thretaening people with it tells me his scruples aren't exactly one of being a pacifist or non violent.

 

 

"I'm not implying that "without guns it'll be Happy happy Land with no violence mass or otherwise". However, I do think that the number of people killed or wounded unintentionally during a heist, theft or whatever will decrease. The number of people killed by non- professional criminals and psychopaths will also decrease."

 

Disagree. Violence, and the threat of violence has nothing to do with guns. It has to do with people. Guns are not the issue. They're a tool like anything else. You do realzie that much violent crime is commited between family members, and those who know each other right? And, while I don't have the numbers before, I bet most violence in the home (ie. abusive spouses and parents) are done without guns.

 

 

 

 

"KILLING AND WOUNDING OTHER PEOPLE = NOT GOOD"

 

Simply not always true. I find it a GOOD thing to kill a wood be kidnapper trying to kidnap my child (if I had one), or my neice. And, I wouldn't cry about it. In fact, I'd be disghusted even more that the punk put me in a situation where I had to kill him. But, I most certianly wouldn't blame myself.

 

 

"Right" and "Wrong" is not solely defined by what the law says."

 

FALLACY! ERROR! MISTAKE!

 

You obviously have not paid attention to anything i've ever wrote. I don't base my morals on what the law is. There are TONS of laws I disagree with in my own country and elsewhere. In fact, some of my opinions on current laws would probably have people claling me a moron/etc. again.

 

I don't care about the law says about stuff like scumbags would be murderers who target innocents because of greed. And, I don't care if said criminal is some poor bum off the street, middle class, or high society richer than rich doofus.

 

 

"Today, we have a prison system that works towards rehabilitating criminals, public education, psychologists, homeless shelters - an entire social safety net which prevents people from becoming criminals. The best way to keep people from becoming criminals is to make sure they have a good childhood."

 

This must explain those people who make good money/come from 'high class' yet still turn to crime.

 

I know some people wnat to believe that everyone at heart is a good person. But, that's naive, and not using one's ehad. Some people ar ejust simply old fashion greedy and selfish. Those two traits are what often leads to people commiting acts of violence. Same with jealousy, hate, and yes even 'love'. Afterall, the husband who abuses his wife than begs for forgiveness is a fine example of this.

 

Anyways, abck to guns. Guns don't cause crimes. Criminals do.

Edited October 4, 2008 by Volourn

[Aram]

Crime is chosen by a person because of his/her own narcissism and lack of conscience; it's simply easier to take what one wants than to work for it. Period. Blaming society for the choices made by individuals is illogical and for the most part is demonstrably untrue.

Untrue. Criminality is much higher in poor areas of society than in rich areas of society. This is the fact in every city, in every country all over the world. The more a person feels rejected by the society he/she lives in, the easier it is for said person to commit a crime against that society. Most people don't become criminals because they are too lazy to work (which is what you're insinuating), it's because they feel they are being treated unfairly by society and thus doesn't care for society. Rich people could add a few million to their bank accounts by robbing banks too, instead of having to work 12 hours every day. So why don't they?

Crooked rich people just find safer ways to rob you.

[Walsingham]

Crime is chosen by a person because of his/her own narcissism and lack of conscience; it's simply easier to take what one wants than to work for it. Period. Blaming society for the choices made by individuals is illogical and for the most part is demonstrably untrue.

Untrue. Criminality is much higher in poor areas of society than in rich areas of society. This is the fact in every city, in every country all over the world. The more a person feels rejected by the society he/she lives in, the easier it is for said person to commit a crime against that society. Most people don't become criminals because they are too lazy to work (which is what you're insinuating), it's because they feel they are being treated unfairly by society and thus doesn't care for society. Rich people could add a few million to their bank accounts by robbing banks too, instead of having to work 12 hours every day. So why don't they?

 

The rich people I know don't work 12 hours a day any more than the poor people I know. As Aram says, I recjkon criminality is usually down to other factors. To follow a similar line to you, a lot of the rich people I know have contempt for society because they feel superior to it rather than rejected by it.

[Rostere]

Just butting in here for a moment. I think you have rather a romanticized concept of felons as people whom society has tread upon, and who have no choice but to turn to a life of crime. Of course there are people from poor and abusive families that have turned to crime; but most people, the vast majority of people from poor and abusive families do not turn to crime. And frankly I suspect if there were statistics available to segregate criminals by their upbringing you'd find the at least half, perhaps more, of these criminals came from middle-class families, were not abused and decided to rob people and steal cars because it was just easier to take other people's stuff than it was to get a job and earn their own stuff. Simple as that.

 

I've worked closely with police departments in the past, and trust me when I say that white, middle-class felons were the rule, not the exception. Crime is not forced upon a person because of environment. Crime is chosen by a person because of his/her own narcissism and lack of conscience; it's simply easier to take what one wants than to work for it. Period. Blaming society for the choices made by individuals is illogical and for the most part is demonstrably untrue.

 

You should check this out: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_43.html

 

The number of Afro- Americans in the US: roughly 39 million.

 

The number of Caucasian Americans in the US: roughly 223 million.

 

Based on those numbers, Caucasian American criminals should be a little more than five times more common than Afro- American criminals. However, the FBI study clearly states that "white" criminals outnumber "black" criminals only by slightly more than 2 to 1. Only three different crimes are commited by as many (proportionally) Afro- Americans as Caucasians: Driving under the influence of alcohol, breaking liquor laws and drunkenness.

 

Conclusion: Afro- American citizens have a remarkably high rate of criminal behaviour.

 

I also checked this matter at the Swedish Council of Crime Prevention (BR

[~Di]

People who want to absolve criminals of responsibility for their own behavior by blaming it on society, poverty, circumstances and environment can always find a way to twist statistics to support their own beliefs. I am simply saying that individuals choose to become criminals or not to become criminals. Most poor people are not criminals. Those that are have nothing and no one to blame but themselves. It was their behavior and their choice.

[Aram]

You should check this out: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_43.html

 

The number of Afro- Americans in the US: roughly 39 million.

 

The number of Caucasian Americans in the US: roughly 223 million.

 

Based on those numbers, Caucasian American criminals should be a little more than five times more common than Afro- American criminals. However, the FBI study clearly states that "white" criminals outnumber "black" criminals only by slightly more than 2 to 1. Only three different crimes are commited by as many (proportionally) Afro- Americans as Caucasians: Driving under the influence of alcohol, breaking liquor laws and drunkenness.

 

Conclusion: Afro- American citizens have a remarkably high rate of criminal behaviour.

 

Racist!

[Volourn]

"It was their behavior and their choice."

 

Game over.

 

 

 

P.S. NEWSFLASH: Exceptions prove the rule.

[Gorgon]

A statistic is not an exception, exceptions are inside the statistics.

 

 

Anyway what we are seeing is the usual difference between American and European posters.

 

Everything is your own doing, versus everything is connected.

[Walsingham]

your statistic is not ameasure of criminal behaviour per se. It's a measure of what the (mostly white) police will pick people up for. I'm not anti-cop at all, as my other posts should have shown, but simply pointing at arrest records doesn't 'prove' your point. [assuming I understand your point]

[Guest The Architect]

Untrue. Criminality is much higher in poor areas of society than in rich areas of society. This is the fact in every city, in every country all over the world. The more a person feels rejected by the society he/she lives in, the easier it is for said person to commit a crime against that society. Most people don't become criminals because they are too lazy to work (which is what you're insinuating), it's because they feel they are being treated unfairly by society and thus doesn't care for society. Rich people could add a few million to their bank accounts by robbing banks too, instead of having to work 12 hours every day. So why don't they?

 

This is true, I mean have you seen what most criminals look like? They're usually ugly ****ers, which doesn't make it easy for them to not be rejected by society. Whether as you can be pretty, a complete **** head, but you'd have to be pretty ****in horrible to become a reject of society.

 

It's the non reject appearance like criminals that are often puzzling. They're usually just sick in the head or need to do crime to survive. Of course, how one handles rejection of any sort isn't the same for everybody, but nobody can say it isn't societies problem because if more people were a little less ignorant and accepting to begin with, there's a good chance there wouldn't be as many criminals as there have been and will continue to be.

[mkreku]

People who want to absolve criminals of responsibility for their own behavior by blaming it on society, poverty, circumstances and environment can always find a way to twist statistics to support their own beliefs. I am simply saying that individuals choose to become criminals or not to become criminals. Most poor people are not criminals. Those that are have nothing and no one to blame but themselves. It was their behavior and their choice.

I actually wish the world was a s simple as you think it is.

 

Just a quick question: have you ever travelled outside the US (which is where I presume you live)?

[Gorgon]

Why does it have to be one or the other, that is come down to either complete social determinism or the hallowed individual choice.

 

Doesn't both choice and circumstance have a part to play in the creation of an individual.

[Meshugger]

Why does it have to be one or the other, that is come down to either complete social determinism or the hallowed individual choice.

 

Doesn't both choice and circumstance have a part to play in the creation of an individual.

 

This.

 

Di~, you are right in the regard that it is ultimately the individual who chooses to do a criminal act (what a criminal act is another question). But judging from your post, you seem to believe that society has no influence whatsoever on one individual's upbringing, congnitive reasoning and viewpoint of life, which i highly disagree upon. If that were true, then the ghettos and the rich neighbourhoods would have the same crimerate and the same type of crime, and ofcourse the same percentage of Rhodes Scholars.

 

What is exactly is your reasoning that the environment plays no role in shaping up ones character?

[~Di]

Why does it have to be one or the other, that is come down to either complete social determinism or the hallowed individual choice.

 

Doesn't both choice and circumstance have a part to play in the creation of an individual.

 

This.

 

Di~, you are right in the regard that it is ultimately the individual who chooses to do a criminal act (what a criminal act is another question). But judging from your post, you seem to believe that society has no influence whatsoever on one individual's upbringing, congnitive reasoning and viewpoint of life, which i highly disagree upon. If that were true, then the ghettos and the rich neighbourhoods would have the same crimerate and the same type of crime, and ofcourse the same percentage of Rhodes Scholars.

 

What is exactly is your reasoning that the environment plays no role in shaping up ones character?

 

I don't believe I said that environment plays no role. See my post #108. People raised in poverty, violence and abuse are exposed to crime more routinely than those who are not raised in that environment. My position is that more people raised in poverty, violence and abuse choose not to commit crimes than choose to commit crimes; therefore, the choice is the individual's alone. I've also seen large pockets of crime in middle-class neighborhoods where the criminals were not exposed to poverty, violence and abuse; they choose to commit crimes for the same reason that any criminal does... it's easier to take someone else's belongings than to work to earn those belongings on your own.

 

I do not subscribe to the notion that "society made me what I am today." One may have more or fewer opportunities based upon the economics of one's birth. It may be more difficult for a poor person to secure the education needed to rise above his/her upbringing. Yet many, many people have risen from poverty to success and power through their own determination and hard work. Many, many people from good middle-and-upper class upbringings have fallen into the cesspool of crime through laziness, addiction, or a simple belief that they are entitled to take whatever they want.

 

To me, the "society made me do it" excuse is a lame cliche, cited robotically as a way to erase personal choice and responsibility by blaming the ecomic factors of birth. It reeks of the "from each according to ability, to each according to need" mantra as a way to equalize everyone, thereby eliminating these nasty economic factors... and supposedly eliminating crime in the process. Only we have seen that doesn't work. It rewards the lazy, penalizes the productive, and completely obliterates personal incentive. It puts government in the role of parent, citizen in the role of child, a role one can never outgrow. And it eliminates personal responsibility for one's choices and behaviors, resulting in a lack of motivation to make those choices wisely.

 

That is why I believe that using the "societal" crutch to excuse crime will in the long run be detrimental not only to that same society, but to the individuals comprising it as well.

[Walsingham]

If I may say so, it sounds as if Di is of my persuasion: that society and genetics explain almost everything, but excuse nothing.

 

Without the presumption that each individual is reponsible for their actions, any notion of justice centred on the individual is meaningless.

 

Or, in the immortal words of Homer: "...Just because I don't care, doesn't mean I don't understand."