More guns= less crime?

Axelgear · Post by **Axelgear** » Mon Jan 08, 2007 3:29 pm

frigidmagi wrote:Nor have I heard of armed milita's of Christians executing Hindus or Buddhist in California or any such organized activity. Not to say that incidents don't happen. Abortion clinics do get bombed and Churches do get burnt to the ground. However compared the sheer level of hate that exist in the ME for groups that happen to be on the other side of different, North America is freaken paradise on Earth.

Erm... Ever seen India? Christian mobs have attacked Hindus. A lot. Organized too, not just random attacks.

This actually goes towards my point that discontentment and poor living conditions cause violence, not guns or religion. Look at Washington; it has a lot of poor neighbourhoods, uneducated people, and a generally unhappy population outside the actual capital hill area.

The factors of a poor standard of life are the only constant in these surroundings. Religion, ethnic origin, climate, everything changes except for the fact that the people live in slums. Guns, Religion, they don't change a THING if the people aren't happy and content. Who is more likely to cause a gang war: A guy with a job that pays the bills and gives him an, at least, average life, or the guy without a job and poor food and shelter? If you lack something to lose by causing violence, you generally go for it, but if you have a happy life that risks becoming unhappy for it, you generally don't do it.

BrockthePaine · Post by **BrockthePaine** » Mon Jan 08, 2007 5:06 pm

Axelgear wrote:This actually goes towards my point that discontentment and poor living conditions cause violence, not guns or religion. Look at Washington; it has a lot of poor neighbourhoods, uneducated people, and a generally unhappy population outside the actual capital hill area.

The factors of a poor standard of life are the only constant in these surroundings. Religion, ethnic origin, climate, everything changes except for the fact that the people live in slums. Guns, Religion, they don't change a THING if the people aren't happy and content. Who is more likely to cause a gang war: A guy with a job that pays the bills and gives him an, at least, average life, or the guy without a job and poor food and shelter? If you lack something to lose by causing violence, you generally go for it, but if you have a happy life that risks becoming unhappy for it, you generally don't do it.

And, when you live in a 50,000 square foot hilltop mansion with a Bentley in the garage, your own heated indoor pool, a home theater, a private jet and helicopter for going to work, and all-original copies of Machiavelli and Plato... then you know how to skim the accounts and hire hit men to take out your enemies.

No, here's the deal: morality emphasizes earning what you want to own. It penalizes for taking it by force. Morality emphasizes hard work; it discourages stealing. A moral (read 'religious') person is much more likely to be an upstanding citizen, because they follow a code which is not defined by their personal whims.

Regarding Christians attacking Hindus in India - show me links. I'd believe if you said Nigeria (where more things than religion have come into play) but I'm very skeptical of India. Too few Christians there to make much of a mob, anyway.

Axelgear · Post by **Axelgear** » Mon Jan 08, 2007 5:27 pm

That should help. Both sides are as bad as each other really. Though you should know Christianity is the third-largest religion in India, with about 24 million of them.

As to Mob Bosses who live in mansions, how many times do you hear of them wanting to get out of the game? It's the life they were born into. However, when is the last time you heard of someone with a comfortable, happy life going into the mob willingly? As to the other types, wealth gives you access to pretty much, well, everything, and you either work very hard or very little for your wealth, and either one will breed a strong desire to get as much out of it as possible.

RHJunior · Post by **RHJunior** » Mon Jan 08, 2007 11:30 pm

Poverty causes crime? The newspapers are filled, every day, with stories of prosperous people committing atrocious crimes. To wit, Saddam Hussein, Kim Il Jong, and Osama bin Laden all have something in common.... they were stinking rich. Most of the ranks above "disposable goon" in the terrorist network have been from well-to-do families.

Furthermore, if poverty caused crime, the history of the Great Depression would have been one of bloody anarchy. It was demonstrably not. If anything, the people of that generation were of far better fibre than the "poor" of today.... who get fat on food stamps, live in free government houses, and loot and riot at the drop of a hat.

People do not commit crimes because they are "desperate." They commit crimes because they're morally bankrupt--- and they've decided that being a swine is easier than being self-sufficient.

Wanderwolf · Post by **Wanderwolf** » Tue Jan 09, 2007 12:09 am

RHJunior wrote:Furthermore, if poverty caused crime, the history of the Great Depression would have been one of bloody anarchy. It was demonstrably not. If anything, the people of that generation were of far better fibre than the "poor" of today.... who get fat on food stamps, live in free government houses, and loot and riot at the drop of a hat.

I hate to break it to you, Ralph, but the Depression was no "golden age" of morality. The Prohibition act brought the heyday of organized crime; Bonnie and Clyde looted and murdered their way across Texas; John Dillinger, Baby Face Nelson, and Harry Pierpont made headlines for robbing banks and destroying mortgage records; "Pretty Boy" Floyd and "Machine Gun" Kelly were in armed robbery; Capone was on his way to the top; and "42nd Street"?

"Where the underworld can meet the elite.
Forty-second street."

There's a reason Elliot Ness became famous, and it's not his wardrobe.

Yours truly.

The wolfish,

Wanderer

Skull · Post by **Skull** » Tue Jan 09, 2007 2:21 am

RHJunior wrote:People do not commit crimes because they are "desperate." They commit crimes because they're morally bankrupt--- and they've decided that being a swine is easier than being self-sufficient.

I'm glad we agree on this point, at least.

~fin.

RHJunior · Post by **RHJunior** » Tue Jan 09, 2007 5:57 am

Wanderwolf: And none of those heinous criminals of yesteryear would have even made the front page today.

Nor, for that matter, were any of them "starving and desperate." They were just butt-hats. Thank you for emphasizing my proven point for me.

Repeated as self evident: if poverty were the "root cause" of crime, every other person in the United States would have been a Bonnie or Clyde during the Great Depression. The people of that time knew desperation noone in this forum can imagine much less claim to have experienced.... yet the likes of Bonnie and Clyde, Dillinger, and Baby Face Nelson were noted precisely because they were extraordinary examples. There was organized crime-- there's always been "organized crime" of one sort or another-- but law and order still prevailed, was EXPECTED to prevail. And it prevailed far more THEN, than it does in the prosperous times NOW.

You give us Al Capone.... I give you the people and the system that put his worthless, syphilitic carcass behind bars.

Crime does not exist because of poverty. It exists because of people who think the law doesn't apply to them--- and because of stupid enablers who blame crime on everything but the criminal.

Deckard Canine · Post by **Deckard Canine** » Tue Jan 09, 2007 6:34 am

I just thought of another factor in DC's crime rate: back in the Reagan Administration, the local mental hospitals dispatched everyone they thought was not dangerous. I still see many "eccentrics," especially on the bus.

MikeVanPelt · Post by **MikeVanPelt** » Tue Jan 09, 2007 10:14 am

Deckard Canine wrote:I just thought of another factor in DC's crime rate: back in the Reagan Administration, the local mental hospitals dispatched everyone they thought was not dangerous. I still see many "eccentrics," especially on the bus.

First time I've heard the "Reagan emptied the insane asylums out onto the street" legend about DC. Usually, that's said about California.

What actually happened in California is that it was, probably, way too easy to get someone permanently incarcerated as "insane". There were all kinds of stories where relatives conspire to get their slightly eccentric but more-than-slightly wealthy aunt committed so as to get their hands on her money without risking getting caught for murdering her.

Remember the movie "Harvey"? When that movie was made, it was perfectly possible for someone to get locked up forever who was hurting no one, threatening no one, taking care of himself -- just because he had an "invisible friend."

It was a civil rights issue. Under what circumstances is it permissible to take someone who has committed no crime and lock them up for the remainder of their lives? "I find this person inconvenient" is too lax a standard. I'll agree, the standard we've got now is too stringent.

And it wasn't Reagan who did it. The bill was signed during the administration of Pat Brown, Reagan's predecessor.

Wanderwolf · Post by **Wanderwolf** » Tue Jan 09, 2007 11:18 am

RHJunior wrote:Wanderwolf: And none of those heinous criminals of yesteryear would have even made the front page today.

Okay, I have to wonder where you're getting this. I mean, bank robbers who don't kill anyone at least top the Metro section. I'd expect robbery/murder teams to at least wind up near the top.

Oh, and Bonnie and Clyde were poor, Ralph, as were most of the people recruited into organized crime. Ever hear the old joke? "If it wasn't for the money, I'd join the police."

Bonnie was the daughter of a hard-working woman in Rowena, TX, and had nothing. Clyde was the son of a cotton-picker. Those two had looks and nothing else.

"Machine Gun" Kelly was broke and jobless when he joined organized crime as a bootlegger.

Al Capone grew up in the bad part of Brooklyn. (And with a name like "Alphonsus", he had to be tough.)

"Baby Face" Nelson was born to a poor Belgian immigrant couple.

"Pretty Boy" Floyd was the son of a poor farming family.

Yes, Ralph, they were poor. These weren't "Oh what fun, I do believe I'll rob a bank today, bring the car around, Jeeves". These were "I don't got money, they got money, let's fix that".

The closest you got to that was Dillinger, spoiled son of a grocer. He wanted to be the next Jesse James.

Really, Ralph, do your homework and avoid blatant untruths.

Yours truly,

The wolfish,

Wanderer

LoneWolf23k · Post by **LoneWolf23k** » Tue Jan 09, 2007 1:29 pm

Let's just look at today's main organised crime element, the street gangs..

...Go ahead and try to convince me most of them go into crime because they're desperatly poor, when they parade around with their tricked-out cars, shiny guns and all their "bling"...

While I have no doubt that kids join gangs because they want the luxurious lifestyle, it's not out of a lack of more legitimate career opportunities..

It's because crime offers easy and immediate fame and fortune.

Why spend 20 years working your @$$ off so you can save enough money for your retirement when you can sell some drugs and make the same amount of money in a month?

In a related note, today's Montreal Journal had an article that stated that Bank Robberies in Montreal have actually dropped 400% in the past 6 years, and that our gun control laws are in part responsible for it. It does mention, however, that most bank robbers today are old-fashionned crooks who can't adapt to more modern theft techniques like Fraud.

P-Frank · Post by **P-Frank** » Sun Jan 14, 2007 7:05 pm

LoneWolf23k wrote:...Go ahead and try to convince me most of them go into crime because they're desperatly poor, when they parade around with their tricked-out cars, shiny guns and all their "bling"...

Read the Freakonomics chapter about how drug dealers live with their mother because at the end of the day they earn sub minimum wage and something like 1 in 3 of them get killed. People are born into this sort of thing.

Wanderwolf · Post by **Wanderwolf** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 2:12 am

Moreover, that's confusing cause with effect. The successful street gangers have fancy stuff because they are in a gang. Not because they have money coming in from a legitimate busines.

Heck, it was one of the reasons the Mafia didn't like "Godfather". Corleone, as pictured in the movie, didn't have lots of rings, or even a shiny belt buckle. His hat wasn't properly blocked, and his suit was the wrong cut.

These people get into the illegal money, and then have money for pretty shinies. After all, what else are they going to do with it? Buy a house? Go to college? Put it in a bank? They can't account for it to the IRS. No, they have to spend it.

Yours truly,

The wolfish,

Wanderer