Slashdot Mirror

Don't take my word for it though. I did do a statistical analysis but so did a lot of other people with much more experience in this than I have.

Your cited article is actually about the relationship between gun laws and homicide in the US, which is a very different question since state-level gun laws may not be as effective as national laws, and state-level laws may become more restrictive in response to gun violence.

Other people do find that gun ownership correlates with violence crime. Though it's extremely difficult to prove causality.

I don't care if the person got murdered with a gun, a knife, or by being tossed out a window. If we want to see murder go down then it can't be done with gun laws. We might see "gun deaths" go down but that's like saying "pool drownings" go down by banning pools while total drownings stay the same because now people go swim in a lake instead.

So your basic claim is that a more effective tool for doing X doesn't increase the rate of X?

In that case I'll replace your computer with a type writer, I expect you to maintain your current levels of productivity.

What treatment is available for thieving immigrants?

Drug related burglaries are the most common and easiest to solve. Do you think people steal because it is in their nature? People steal most often to feed themselves be it drugs or bread. The solution was in the link.

How is vigilante justice "non-thinking"?

Any system of belief that requires one to presume they are qualified to be "judge, jury and executioner" in any situation besides a well-founded belief that one's life or person is in danger cannot at the same time entertain thought that could be considered civilized let alone cogent.

Also, it is not a crime to black in Texas. Why would make such a racist statement?

1 in 3 blacks in Texas are in the criminal justice system and incarcerated 7 times more often than whites and more than twice as much for the same crime. I did not know I was required to post links to information that should be common knowledge to anyone who has read a newspaper about the death penalty case in the supreme court in the last year or so.

Seems mostly aimed at what is discussed in the Fake Trade (http://www.channel4.com/video/the-fake-trade/index.html)

I think we can agree people manufacturing fake heart medicine is a bad thing; and that may have been the selling point.

However, "SEC. 511. LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT GRANTS." does the following:

"(a) Authorization- Section 2 of the Computer Crime Enforcement Act (42 U.S.C. 3713) is amended-- (1) in subsection (b), by inserting after `computer crime' each place it appears the following: `, including infringement of copyrighted works over the Internet';

I sure hope there aren't any congressmen who are violating the terms of CC or GPL. And can you imagine their outrage when their child downloads some songs and they have to forfeit that fancy new laptop? I mean, if enacted this will apply to congressmen, senators, even presidents, right?

Here are some links an asset forfeiture:

http://www.cjcj.org/pdf/civil_asset.pdf (PDF version)
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:57xthSv8mJoJ:www.cjcj.org/pdf/civil_asset.pdf+%22asset+forfeiture+law%22+%22supreme+court%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us (HTML version)
http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-rp061197.html
http://law.gsu.edu/library/index/bibliographies/view?id=64
http://www.aclu.org/crimjustice/searchseizure/10303leg19990802.html
http://www.fear.org/hadaway.html

Also, aside from writing your congressperson and senator, stop supporting the RIAA/MPAA and the like. Stop enabling these people by refusing to watch, listen, pay or even discuss any of their products.

I'm no law expert, but I don't believe Bill Clinton is eligible to run for a third term. But it's not like you can tell who's black and who isn't sitting at your computer, now is it?

I can't be bothered to look up the statistics. ...

"Rates of current use of illicit drugs were higher for young adults aged 18 to 25 (20.1 percent) than for youths aged 12 to 17 and adults aged 26 or older,"

"In the 2004 Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities, 32% of State prisoners and 26% of Federal prisoners said they had committed their current offense while under the influence of drugs. "

SO, the highest drug use rate is about 20%, and the rate of criminals who use drugs is 26% - 32%

Sounds like people who use drugs are LESS law-abiding.

I'm sure you'll continue to nit-pick those numbers, etc. Correlation =/= causation. Whatever. I'm done.

Because we've locked up so many of the wrong people, the deterrent has been diluted. Maybe someone would think twice about holding up a 7-11 at gunpoint if we had enough free cells to put then away for a good 10-20 years. Armed robbers, rapists, child molesters, murderers, etc. have been displaced by too many non-violent "offenders". The deterrent has been diluted.

This got me curious. It's not as bad as I thought it was, but it is getting worse: More than 50% of the people in prison are non-violent. It looks like we could double the time served by violent offenders then, just by de-criminalizing drugs.

School shootings have increased.

Why can't I protect my kid from your kid? Your kid is playing a harmful game that desensitizes him to killing. He pulls the trigger in the videogame (unlike a movie). Thus he is desensitized faster. Why does my kid have to be murdered by your child?

Remember, playing violent video games == murderous child. That's why youth violence is so out of hand. Oh wait, youth violence is at a 25 year low, despite the fact that more children play videogames now than ever in history. If you're more worried about video games than drugs, crime, and gangs, then it's likely that you are the mediocre parent. While videogames are more interactive than television, movies, books, and music, it's only a difference of degree, not kind. If your child is murdered, it will almost certainly be by someone of low intelligence, who is below the poverty line, likely gang-involved, who has probably seen more real violence in their life than any game could provide, no matter what the TV tells you.

Just because you want to sit on your hands and treat him like a knowledgable adult, doesn't mean that you have the right to make other people suffer at your ignorance. Ever hear the saying, "If only I knew then what I know now." That's what it's about. Giving all kids (Even the ones with bad parents) the right to learn then so that they have a chance in not making harmful descisions.

This, of course, has nothing to do with the bill in question. It won't stop parents from buying games for their kids. I imagine you'd like to make that a crime as well.

Look at smoking for example. Most smokers start when they are underage. They don't know any better and they are still disillusioned to the consequence. You don't hear of a 35 year old adult deciding that he wants to be "cool" and smoke. Let's think about it.

Oh yes, fantastic argument. Smoking and homicide are perfectly analagous. You don't hear of 35 year old adults deciding he wants to be "cool" and blow away the Human Resources department. Airtight logic, that.

Finally, it takes a villiage to raise a child.

My child will be fine if I can keep you goddamn superstitious villagers away from her.

While I am tempted to agree with you, little details like the fact that more people were put in jail by Clinton than either Reagon or Bush or the fact that treaties like NAFTA were signed by Clinton with bi-partisan support make you wonder where the real difference are between the two parties.

Or to make it more current: Can you tell me who was the peace candidate in the last election?

I have to agree that Bush's program or remaking the world according to some strange notion of "freedom" that doesn't match up with my definition of the term is bad. However when you start looking at the details both parties leave a great deal to be desired.

Neocon, your points on England, the Netherlands, and Denmark, compare civil penalties, restrictions, and impositions to criminal imprisonment. I agree that prior restraint, restrictions and impositions on the practice of journalism, and warrantless searches are bad, but who thinks that they are anywhere near as bad as the U.S. pandering to powerful prison guard unions resulting in mandatory minimum sentencing fiascos?

From the July 2000 report, Poor Prescription: The Costs of Imprisoning Drug Offenders in the United States:

Nearly one in four persons (23.7%) imprisoned in the United States is currently imprisoned for a drug offense. The number of persons behind bars for drug offenses (458,131) is roughly the same as the entire prison and jail population in 1980 (474,368).

From a utilitarian perspective, this situation is pointless because as far as I can tell, both prescription and illicit drugs are as available now as they were in 1980. And crime rates in general are within 20% of 1980 levels -- but we have four times as many people in prison! Does that trend lead you to believe that we are becoming more or less free?

For what reason do you suggest that prior restraint and the Official Secrets Act make people less free than mandatory minimum drug sentences? You can compare the two by simply determining whether the other nations in question have a greater proportion of people in prison for violations of the laws you cite. There is no greater loss of freedom experienced in the industrialized world than to be put in prison, save for execution (which, of those countries, is only practiced in the U.S., by the way.) To compare imprisonment to restrictions on freedom of speech resulting in civil penalties, or even warrantless searches, is simply absurd. I'll agree that we are more free in some ways, but nowhere near the most free overall.

DEMOCRACY:

``disqualification of voters'': this accusation ... is nothing more than FUD -- extensive investigations by a number of groups have failed to turn up any significant number of people who were disqualified from voting who were not, in fact felons.

Not according to:

• John Ashcroft's Justice Department
• The New York Times, contrary to your assertion
• The United States Civil Rights Commission -- excerpt:

  Estimates indicate that approximately 14.4 percent of Florida's black voters cast ballots that were rejected. This compares with approximately 1.6 percent of nonblack Florida voters who did not have their presidential votes counted.

• direct inspection of the database tables used

of the nations you name, only one, Australia, uses anything resembling preferential voting of any sort, as you can verify at the Center for Voting and Democracy. Other than them, only Ireland, Malta, and Nauru, in all the world, use any form of such voting. Secondly, this system does not, as you seem to think, necessarily result in a `more democratic' outcome.

While you are technically correct about Austrailia, the systems in use in Canada and Brazil, and parts of England, e.g., the metropolitan London area, and France, also serve to eliminate the spoiler effect. Without the spoiler effect, Ross Perot would not have kept G.H.W. Bush from being re-elected, so this cuts both ways. Any nation incompetent enough to eliminate the spoiler effect, so easily done, is centuries behind in democracy.

POVERTY:

>A crime victim using a firearm in self-defense is over 2/3 less likely to be harmed than one using another weapon.

A december 1999 study by the justice policy institute shows that America's prisons are overflowing with criminals. There are now more criminals behind bars in the USA than there are in most of the EU (if not all). Out of every 4 people you pass on the street, one of them has been to prison. Out of every 3 black people you pass on the street, one will be in jail shortly.

You talk of a country that needs to defend itself with firearms. People outside of your country see a justice system that is out of control, and we know that arming your entire country will not solve the problem. If it hasn't curbed the problem yet, why should be believe you?

What you need is a justice system that works for you. If you feel vigilante justice by the barrel of a gun is perfect for your country, why not take a look at how well that is working for other countries. Ask a friend from a third world country who would have punished him for a a serious crime.

You'll notice it isn't the police, or the justice system.

Its the people.

Vigilante justice by the barrel of a gun is the system that works for third world countries. I can guarantee you that the USA will never join the top 5 best countries to live in as long as people believe that justice should be metered out on the spot with a firearm in the potential victims hands.

>because if I or someone I know commits suicide, it is because said person made a conscious, considered decision to do so, and I respect that decision

Bullshit. Have you ever talked to someone that was saved from their suicide death? Have you ever asked them if they were in a proper state of mind to make that decision?

I think the answer is a resounding no.

>and indeed, I've found people in Texas, one of the more heavily armed of the states, to be far more trusting of their neighbors than residents of California, which has among the strongest gun control

Are people more trusting, or are they infact worried that a show of distrust and, as follows, disrespect might be met with hot lead?

What you speak of is infact the opposite of what your founding fathers wanted for this country. They wanted a peaceful country, where guns were to be used as a defence against invasion by an unlawful government. People in your country have twisted their meaning from a defence against the King of England invading, to a defence against a robber on the street.

For shame that people in your own country haven't read the true meaning written into the very lifeblood of your own country.

Allow me to quote the constitutional right being twisted by the very members of your own country:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

You, a single entity, are not a militia.

This is a militia (thanks, dictionary.com):

1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

First off, the founding fathers of your country wanted you to keep guns available to you in the event an emergency happened. Clearly, a militia, which would be a citizens army, does not respond to individual crimes.

Second off, a militia is clearly not a single entity.

So why do you all have guns and want to use them to defend your individual selves? Do none of you read the foundations that made your country which everyone appears to hold so dearly?

>Those who would gain a little safety by giving up their rights -- and so depriving their children and grandchildren of those same rights -- I cannot forgive them, and much less can I become one.

As I have proved above, Benjamin Franklin didn't want it to be this way. Sorry, no dice. Benjamin Franklin was clearly speaking about 1st Amendment rights, and should be turning over in his grave like a roast on a spit right now.

>Further, allowing concealed handguns demonstrably reduces crime.

A lie which I have previously demonstrated to be a falsehood. And I provided links to my sources as well.

>Hence, using the US and Israel as data points

The US has no known nation actively attacking it. Show me where the American gaza strip is. If you think its in New York, tell me if its happened since.

Didn't think so.

Canada is the closest cousin to the US as far as law, attitude, wars, and culture goes, and it is the most valid comparison one can make. If you think the US is anything like Israel, why don't you go over there and announce you're a Palestinian?

At least in the US if you announce you are black or jewish (the people who seem to be on the most recently hated list for the US) you won't get killed (except by a handgun wielding maniac). And if you do, your government will do everything in its power to protect you, unlike Israel.

A Red Herring, if I do say to myself.

>Likewise, screaming and running away from a rapist is far more dangerous than using a firearm in defense.

Using a firearm in self defence is more likely to result in your death rather than your rape. The majority of American firearm owners are untrained and would more likely miss or graze the attacker than kill them. And if they aren't dead, guess who will be?

Oh, and last but not least, my numbers are coming from an unbiased source. A book with the title "Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda" sounds more like propaganda itself than an unbiased source. Did the writer of this book compile these numbers himself, or did he provide sources of government checked and verified information? Or at least sources of third party, uninvolved information?

Likely not.

The only first world country with such a lax set of gun control laws is also the country that you are most likely to end up in jail in. And it isn't even in the top 5 best countries to live in to boot. Yet your gun controlling cousins are. Explain to me the problem so serious that even your guns can't solve it.

The attitude that guns make America a safe, good place to live in isn't shared by the other 95% of the world, sorry. In fact, a now (sadly) outdated quote repeated on the Simpsons stating that a gun is more likely to kill a family member than a robber goes to show there's a lot of people living in your own country that disagree with you.

But, know what? I don't care all that much. I feel safe in my low crime country. I have walked in our largest cities without arms in the middle of the night, and the only people attacking me are people with their paper begging cups.

But, after a trip to Atlanta, the murder capital of the USA (at the time I was so informed by the news -- if it wasn't #1, I sure as hell wouldn't want to go where #1 is), I suppose I would feel like I have to carry a gun. And, as usual, control through violence sparks more violence, and so the cycle goes. Some cities on spin cycle, and some are on rinse.

I'll keep my city on rinse, thank you very much. And I'll keep my freedoms and essential liberties by being able to go where I want, and do what I want, and think what I want, as long as I don't kill anyone. And, if I really have a need to fire a handgun (and God only knows why) I'll be a police officer or a soldier. So, in effect, you lose no rights, except for the right to be a loose cannon. The majority of the world echoes back that this is a good thing, not a bad thing.

And if you're an American passerby reading this thread, I'm quite sorry for dragging your country through the mud. There's many, many, many great reasons to be an American, probably more than there are to be a Canadian, but a lack of crime through arming the populace simply isn't one of them.

about a year ago, the Justice Policy Institute released a fairly good study about juvenile crime and perception thereof in the united states.

the full report

an excerpt from the introduction:

"Despite the fact that there was a 40% decline in school-associated violent deaths between school years 1997-8 and 1998-9 (from 43 to 26), the number of Americans who were fearful of their schools rose nearly 50% during that same period. Even after two new well-publicized studies reported school crime to be on the decline, seven months after Columbine, more than 60% of Americans said school safety "worried them a great deal." Parents and school boards continue to call for more metal detectors, locker searches and student identification badges, even as students say they feel less safe and report more crime in schools that use these "secure" school procedures. Since the Littleton shooting, when students and school administrators talk about the safety of their schools, they might as well be speaking about different worlds:"

it is impossible to stop random acts of terrorism, particularly when the terrorist doesn't care if he/she gets killed. unless you have every citizen under complete mind control, it's always going to be possible for someone to sneak a gun into a school and blow away 20 people, or to drive a van full of explosives in front of just about any building in the country. i'm not willing to subject everyone to complete mind control to escape the infinitesimal chance that i will be the victim of one of these acts; presumably, if other people actually realized how small their chances of being a victim are, they would also agree that extreme measures aren't worth the costs to freedom.

oh wait... that would require people to understand probability and statistics. hahahahaha!

A Slashdot editor and writer urged me to ask Pinkerton what remedies students and parents would have against false accusations. (The answer: None. Pinkerton doesn't make accusations, they just pass along information. That wasn't the company's problem, the execs said. Nor were any misuses of anonymously reported information by the schools that received it).

Did this remind anyone else of "Wernher Von Braun", and I was singing the Tom Lehrer song to myself "...'vonce rockets are up, who cares vere ze come down, zat's not my depaatment' says Wernher Von Braun"

BTW, here's an interesting study(probably the one Katz was referring to): http://www.cjcj.org/schoolhousehype/shh2.html