New Posts
By:
Filters
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

An experiment

freyasman

freyasman

Senator
On several threads we've discussed changing the laws to attempt to reduce violence; I'd like to propose an experiment. In the places that have some of the worst violent crime, we have some of the most restrictive fireams laws, so what if we put new laws in place making it just as easy for a citizen of Chicago or DC to possess, and carry a firearm, as it would be in say Nashville or Houston? It would have a sunset provision, just as the AWB from '94 to '04 did, and we could re-evaluate the results and decide if the new laws should be renewed. Same with restictions on standard capacity magazines, or military style rifles in places like New York, or California; bring them to a level of restiction that is common in many other states, and see what happens? What say you?
 
Sadly, I'd have to predict little or no impact on violent crime -- neither an increase nor a decrease. That's been the result of increased concealed carry. There were two basic predictions about "shall-issue" concealed carry licensing. The first, from opponents, was that it would turn the issuing state into "Dodge City" with street shootouts on every corner. That didn't happen. The second, from proponents, is that the threat of concealed carry would reduce crime. That didn't happen to any great extent, either.

The reason for this is, I think, simple. The people who wanted to carry guns, be they crook or honest citizen, were already doing so when the laws were passed. The honest citizens went and signed up to legitimize their practice, and the crooks continued to carry illegally as they always had.

If you make gun ownership easier in New York or Boston or Washington D.C. I think you'll see the same phenomenon, but on a smaller percentage basis. Serious firearms hobbyists and those with a professional need for firearms in those places already have guns. Criminals there also already have guns. The population that would be serviced by making the practice of the civil right easier is relatively small, and the impact of the change would also be very small -- as with concealed carry, probably too small to measure reliably.
 
trapdoor said:
Sadly, I'd have to predict little or no impact on violent crime -- neither an increase nor a decrease. That's been the result of increased concealed carry. There were two basic predictions about "shall-issue" concealed carry licensing. The first, from opponents, was that it would turn the issuing state into "Dodge City" with street shootouts on every corner. That didn't happen. The second, from proponents, is that the threat of concealed carry would reduce crime. That didn't happen to any great extent, either.

The reason for this is, I think, simple. The people who wanted to carry guns, be they crook or honest citizen, were already doing so when the laws were passed. The honest citizens went and signed up to legitimize their practice, and the crooks continued to carry illegally as they always had.

If you make gun ownership easier in New York or Boston or Washington D.C. I think you'll see the same phenomenon, but on a smaller percentage basis. Serious firearms hobbyists and those with a professional need for firearms in those places already have guns. Criminals there also already have guns. The population that would be serviced by making the practice of the civil right easier is relatively small, and the impact of the change would also be very small -- as with concealed carry, probably too small to measure reliably.
Click to expand...
Yes, but it would at least give us an opportunity to obtain some data from which to make decisions; one of the only good things about the AWB is that we can now say "tried it, it didn't work...". Everytime some heinous crime is committed, the public says "DO SOMETHING!!"... well, this is something, why not try it? There are probably some liquor store owners and single mom's who would be appreciative...
 
fairsheet said:
Very good synopsis.
Click to expand...
I agree with most of what trapdoor says, but if we really do have to change the existing laws to satisfy the public outcry, I think this is a more palatable change. The ability to get a carry license does not necessarily mean that violent crime will go down; Memphis is a war zone if you get off Beale street, and New Orleans is another example. But it does allow the individual the resources to protect himself, if he's up to it, and in places like Detroit where police response is suffering due to budget cuts, it may be the only thing the citizens can do. Like I said, its an experiment, try it out, analyze the results, re-assess...
 
trapdoor said:
Sadly, I'd have to predict little or no impact on violent crime -- neither an increase nor a decrease. That's been the result of increased concealed carry. There were two basic predictions about "shall-issue" concealed carry licensing. The first, from opponents, was that it would turn the issuing state into "Dodge City" with street shootouts on every corner. That didn't happen. The second, from proponents, is that the threat of concealed carry would reduce crime. That didn't happen to any great extent, either.

The reason for this is, I think, simple. The people who wanted to carry guns, be they crook or honest citizen, were already doing so when the laws were passed. The honest citizens went and signed up to legitimize their practice, and the crooks continued to carry illegally as they always had.

If you make gun ownership easier in New York or Boston or Washington D.C. I think you'll see the same phenomenon, but on a smaller percentage basis. Serious firearms hobbyists and those with a professional need for firearms in those places already have guns. Criminals there also already have guns. The population that would be serviced by making the practice of the civil right easier is relatively small, and the impact of the change would also be very small -- as with concealed carry, probably too small to measure reliably.
Click to expand...

Trapdoor, well stated. I agree.
 
Cuba has the lowest violent crime rate in this hemisphere. We could observe the experiment that's already working and do like they did by distributing guns to the populace through popularly elected neighborhood councils; disbanding the present corrupt police organizations and replacing them with a national professional police force charged with strict and impartial enforcement of the law; and replacing a law code designed to perpetuate social injustice with one designed to secure liberty and justice for all.
 
EatTheRich said:
Cuba has the lowest violent crime rate in this hemisphere. We could observe the experiment that's already working and do like they did by distributing guns to the populace through popularly elected neighborhood councils; disbanding the present corrupt police organizations and replacing them with a national professional police force charged with strict and impartial enforcement of the law; and replacing a law code designed to perpetuate social injustice with one designed to secure liberty and justice for all.
Click to expand...


Sounds like you are an avowed communist and are suggesting we turn commie, sorry not happening Komrad.
 
EatTheRich said:
Cuba has the lowest violent crime rate in this hemisphere. We could observe the experiment that's already working and do like they did by distributing guns to the populace through popularly elected neighborhood councils; disbanding the present corrupt police organizations and replacing them with a national professional police force charged with strict and impartial enforcement of the law; and replacing a law code designed to perpetuate social injustice with one designed to secure liberty and justice for all.
Click to expand...

Cuba remains an authoritarian regime. We'd be sorta silly to try drawing any conclusions for ourselves, from the rates of reported or actual crime under authoritarian regimes.

BUT...that brings up an interesting point as to why crime in Japan (a democratic regime) is so low relative to ours. Some seem convinced that it's a matter of the Japanese being nicer, or more well-behaved, or otherwise more inclined towards law-abidin' that we are. But, I recently read a very interesting argument that's somewhat counter to all that. It suggests that organized crime is very well-established and pervasive throughout modern day Japan. And as much as anything, it's organized crime that tends to enforce the rules of polite and civil behavior. In other words, the kid doesn't not rob the grocery store down the street because he's especially moral and righteous, or because he's afraid of the police. He doesn't do it because he's afraid of the mob!
 
Cuba is called "authoritarian" by people who hate its democracy or are misled by those who do. Anyway, you can agree or disagree with communism, but if you disagree you are asking for higher crime.
 
Cuba's called authoritarian because it is authoritarian. And whether Cuba's rate of crime is greater or lesser than that of the U.S., is irrellevant since the U.S. isn't authoritarian.
 
The U.S. has a higher incarceration rate than Cuba's--in fact, the world's highest. The U.S. tortures prisoners, executes children, and imprisons and executes citizens without trial. Cuba does not. The U.S. has police and intelligence agencies (FBI, CIA) with "secret powers" undisclosed to the legislative branch or the public. Cuba does not. The FBI has a history of infiltrating and disrupting peaceful, legal movements that are critical of the government. Cuba's Directorate of General Intelligence does not. The U.S. uses police and National Guard to break up demonstrations. Cuba does not. Cuba's president travels openly around the country without a bodyguard. The U.S.'s does not. Cuba's government distributes arms to the public. The U.S.'s does not.

But Cuba executes 3 people convicted of hijacking or imprisons people convicted of receiving money from the U.S. to organize anti-government conapiracies. So it's "authoritarian."
 
Its authoritarian because it has a dictator for life running it. And it has one political party and one candidate for each office.
 
Actually Cuba's president, Raul Castro, was elected by the Council of State, which was elected by the National Assembly, which was elected by the people of Cuba in accordance with Cuba's constitution. He shares executive powers with a number of other individuals who were also selected according to constitutional procedures. Cuba's Communist Party is not an electoral party; elections in Cuba are nonpartisan by law. The Communist Party grew out of the popular revolution of 1959 and exists to defend that revolution in accordance with the wishes of the vast majority of Cubans, and it happens to have a higher proportion of its country's citizens as members than the Democratic and Republican Parties combined (so we have a "choice" between two parties that together represent a narrower clique than Cuba's Communist Party does). Candidates for office in Cuba are chosen by public nomination in factories, state-owned farms, and mass organizations analogous to NOW, NAACP, etc. The person who receives the most votes by show of hands, whether a Communist Party member or not, goes on the ballot; and a large minority of members of the National Assembly are in fact not party members. And of course, once they go on the ballot, they still have to receive the support of a majority to be elected.

Would Cuba be more democratic if it allowed opposition parties? Certainly. But consider the history of opposition parties in Cuba: allying themselves with the U.S. to overthrow the government, welcome anti-government mercenaries, aid and abet terrorist attacks on the country and on its friends overseas, lynch literacy volunteers, etc. To anyone who thinks that Cuba should be condemned for failing to conform to a regulatory ideal of democracy--even if imposing their version of democracy (multiparty elections) goes against most Cubans' wishes (success of the revolution)--I have just two words: SALVADOR ALLENDE!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top