Yeas we have a crime problem. As everyone here knows, the most likely perpetrators of violent crimes are not Mr Stranger Danger, your friendly neighborhood Psychopath, or even gangbangers and drug dealers. They are your family and friends, specifically your husband or boyfriend. (Violent crime is an overwhelmingly young male pastime.) The presence of guns substantially increases the likelihood that domestic disputes will escalate from screaming to shooting; being armed makes it much more likely that you will be a victim of violent crime; and, leaving aside the technical fact that suicide is widely illegal, the presence of guns makes it much more likely that a depressive episode will lead to suicide or attempts at suicide.
So guns are not part of the solution. They are part of the problem. To the extent that we have a crime problem, widespread gun ownership exacerbates it. All of this is familiar ground. It's basically incontrovertible, which is in part why the NRA casts its rhetoric in terms of rights, damn the consequences. Of course it lies about the consequences too.
Sent from my iPad
On Dec 24, 2012, at 6:21 AM, shag carpet bomb <shag at cleandraws.com> wrote:
>
> Actually, Jordan knows this quite well. In these debates over gun ownership in the past, he has repeatedly pointed out the decreasing crime rate. He has also pointed at one of the other suspects for the falling crime rate, IIRC: sentencing. Jordan has said in this convo and previously that violent crime tends to be commited by people engaged in criminal activity. They associate with each other, get in arguments, turf wars, etc. They shoot each other. Putting them in prison has contributed to a reduction in the crime rate as an example.
>
> Jordan's comment about a violent crime problem seem to apply regardless as to whether the rate has fallen.
>
> If the unemployment rate goes from 25% to 15%, we still have a unemployment problem. The rate may be falling over time, but it doesn't follow that there is no unemployment problem. I'm assuming that is what he is saying in re: violent crime.
>
> Jordan?
>
> At 09:54 PM 12/23/2012, andie_nachgeborenen wrote:
>> Apparently you haven't been paying attention since the early 1990s. Violent crime rates have fallen to half their level from that time in a sharp drop that shows no sign of decreasing. Experts are puzzled. See NYT 5.23.11. My own chief candidate for an explanation is that this coincides with the point at which the majority of the population became older than 34. Most violent crimes are committed by young makes, ages 18-34. There are other explanations, including higher incarceration rates and longer sentences, more effective law enforcement strategies, even more effective gun control. No one knows for sure. But America's violent crime problem _is_ curing itself or being cured. No doubt it would be much less than what it is if handgun and assault weapon ownership was banned or restricted as in Europe. But you simply have no right to an opinion on the relation of gun ownership to crime if you don't know this fundamental fact about American criminology. Btw, nonviolent property!
>> crimes have been declining at about the same rate over the same period. Start doing your homework, then you will have heard something and maybe say something worth hearing.
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Dec 23, 2012, at 7:57 AM, "Jordan Hayes" <jmhayes at j-o-r-d-a-n.com> wrote:
>>
>> > andie says:
>> >
>> >> In that sense we do not have a violent crime problem.
>> >
>> > Now I've heard everything.
>> > ___________________________________
>> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talks
>>
>> ___________________________________
>> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
> --
> http://cleandraws.com
> Wear Clean Draws
> ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk