Guns and violence

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Nov 23, 2007
1,172
773
1,743
#66
I don't buy it. Or, if that is really true, if we really cannot have freedom to keep and bear without the violence, then maybe it is really time to give up the freedom.
The simple truth is that guns amplify the consequences of anyone's decision to commit violence.

We, as a society, have decided that the freedom to own guns, and their resulting easy availability, is more important than the increase in consequences of violent decisions.
 

HeartLike_JohnStarks

Territorial Marshal
Jan 11, 2008
9,276
2,380
1,743
Streets got my heart, game got my soul
#67
I wouldn't want to live in either part of the city, to be honest. I live in the suburbs to the north of the city. My wife teaches in a pretty rough part of the city, and our foster son is from southwest Philly, so we are in that area a lot for his visits with his family. Philly is a fascinating city. There will be a section of broken down, crime-riddled, burned-out homes just a block or two from a very well to do section. I have lived in and visited a lot of other parts of the country, but I have never seen the stark contrasts and odd juxtapositions that I have seen here.
Yeah I gone past through the areas surrounding in and around the Eagles' stadium, driving from the west and I could easily tell the difference just from driving through.
But that's like that almost every major metro city. There will always be that juxtaposition of wealth and poverty, and everything in between. I grew up on the more depressing and rougher part of the city in Dallas. But on the bright side, I was just a couple of miles on either side I could drive down to the old Cowboys stadium or the Rangers' stadium (was never fortunate enough to go to either though :( )
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
15,109
23,086
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#68
The simple truth is that guns amplify the consequences of anyone's decision to commit violence.

We, as a society, have decided that the freedom to own guns, and their resulting easy availability, is more important than the increase in consequences of violent decisions.
That truth is not so simple. Can't it also be true that guns can limit the consequences of another persons decision to commit violence when they attempt to do so against a person who is also armed? I believe it's actually just the opposite of what you stated, take away this particular freedom and you'll really see an increase in the consequences of violent decisions.

This is a great link on this subject because it seems the only stories you hear in the media about guns are the negative ones even though there are plenty of positive ones out there.

http://www.learnaboutguns.com/tag/self-defense-example/
 

Epperley28

Federal Marshal
Nov 11, 2005
10,672
1,783
1,743
#70
The U. S. already executes more people than most other countries, so wouldn't be surprised that would work as much of a deterrent.
We're only losing to China, Pakistan, Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the Congo. Texas is doing all it can, people. It's time to pick up the slack. Do we really want to lose to Pakistan and the Congo? Thank God we incarcerate more of our population per capita than they do or I might be really embarrassed.

USA! USA! USA!

 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
51,117
17,717
1,743
#71
We're only losing to China, Pakistan, Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the Congo. Texas is doing all it can, people. It's time to pick up the slack. Do we really want to lose to Pakistan and the Congo? Thank God we incarcerate more of our population per capita than they do or I might be really embarrassed.

USA! USA! USA!

Who is in jail you would rather see on the streets?
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
15,109
23,086
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#72
We're only losing to China, Pakistan, Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the Congo. Texas is doing all it can, people. It's time to pick up the slack. Do we really want to lose to Pakistan and the Congo? Thank God we incarcerate more of our population per capita than they do or I might be really embarrassed.

USA! USA! USA!

Maybe the fact that we have more people incarcerated than those country's is an indication that our prisons aren't nearly as much a punishment as their's are.
 

Epperley28

Federal Marshal
Nov 11, 2005
10,672
1,783
1,743
#75
Maybe the fact that we have more people incarcerated than those country's is an indication that our prisons aren't nearly as much a punishment as their's are.
"You just licked off the part that forbids cruel and unusual punishment."

"Sweet!" (pulls out brass knuckles)

 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
51,117
17,717
1,743
#76
Non-violent drug offenders.

Oh, and hot hetero female rapists, if there are any.
So how many non-violent drug offenders are in jail?

And exactly what would you call non-violent? A mother selling drugs out of her trailerhouse with a child present, should she be in jail?
 

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
26,330
15,249
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
#77
So how many non-violent drug offenders are in jail?
Reducing the Non-Violent drug offenders prison population by just 50% would save tax payers $17 Billion per year and return the US to the same incarceration rate we had in 1993

Surly by only reducing it by 50% you could identfy the actual non-violent drug offenders who really need to be in Jail...just like the mother you spoke of
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
51,117
17,717
1,743
#78
Reducing the Non-Violent drug offenders prison population by just 50% would save tax payers $17 Billion per year and return the US to the same incarceration rate we had in 1993

Surly by only reducing it by 50% you could identfy the actual non-violent drug offenders who really need to be in Jail...just like the mother you spoke of
I still want to hear of a few examples of those in jail who are non violent drug offenders. What are they in jail for?

I've shown the statistics before that it's a lie that people are in jail for simple possession in any significant numbers....
 

Epperley28

Federal Marshal
Nov 11, 2005
10,672
1,783
1,743
#79
So how many non-violent drug offenders are in jail?
From the DOJ. It's old, but it gives you an idea:
The major findings of this study are:
  • A substantial number of drug law violators sentenced to incarceration in Bureau of Prisons custody can be classified as "low-level". Using one set of criteria which limited offenders to no current or prior violence in their records, no involvement in sophisticated criminal activity and no prior commitment, there were 16,316 Federal prisoners who could be considered low-level drug law violators. They constituted 36.1 percent of all drug law offenders in the prison system and 21.2 percent of the total sentenced Federal prison population.
  • If we further restricted the population to those offenders with zero criminal history points - according to U.S. Sentencing Commission rules, there were 12,727 Federal prisoners who could be considered low-level drug law violators. They constituted 28.2 percent of all drug offenders in the prison system and 16.6 percent of all sentenced prisoners.
http://www.november.org/razorwire/rzold/20/20021.html
And exactly what would you call non-violent?
The same thing the courts do. Here's the FBI's definition: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/violent_crime/index.html