All Hail the Second Amendment

[A Theist]

Judging from history, I'd say wealth is a get out of jail free pass for crime. I mean, how many bankers went to jail for the housing crisis? How many Enron executives went to jail for that collapse? You want to know why OJ Simpson got off?

Indeed....but that doesn't mean justice can't be tainted with either leftwing socio bias or with racial bias (or both) as well....
In the case of OJ Simpson, my opinion is that when you look at the socio / racial make up of the jury at his murder trial, it was race, not money that got Simpson off...

The jury by race consisted of 9 Blacks, 1 Hispanic, and 2 Whites....all jury members were Democrats....10 of the jury members were women, among whom were the only two white jury members....

Some other facts about the final jury: (1) None regularly read a newspaper, but eight regularly watch tabloid TV shows, (2) five thought it was sometimes appropriate to use force on a family member, (3) all were Democrats, (4) five reported that they or another family member had had a negative experience with the police, (5) nine thought that Simpson was less likely to be a murderer because he was a professional athlete.

The racial composition of the initial jury pool differed considerably from the racial compostion of the final jury. The pool was 40% white, 28% black, 17% Hispanic, and 15% Asian.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ft...ypage.html

[The Grand Nudger]

Just to add, a lot of the assault statistics are skewed by violence on a night out on Fridays and Saturdays (I found figures a while back based on police areas in various English and welsh counties that saw 'violent crime' escalate massively on Fridays and Saturdays).

That is an issue that revolves around issues with the so-called 'drink culture' that exists in some areas around the country (I dispute this idea to a degree but it certainly is a problem in some areas)

Also, the figures (If I can find them, which I will attempt to do) would show violent crimes heavily centralised in some of the poorer inner city areas and in popular 'drinking' areas throughout various cities.

I think you'll agree, the last thing you want to do is add a gun to a scenario like that.

Assault-while-drunk is assault nevertheless, lots of things escalate during happy hour (lets not forget ufo sightings), lol. As far as I was aware, poorer inner city areas are uniformly more violent just about anywhere they care to track the stats on those lines. That's not skewing, that's cultural and statistical parity.

In any case, waving a gun around drunk is as bad an idea as driving drunk and for the very same reasons, won't get any disagreement from me on that count.

[TaraJo]

Judging from history, I'd say wealth is a get out of jail free pass for crime. I mean, how many bankers went to jail for the housing crisis? How many Enron executives went to jail for that collapse? You want to know why OJ Simpson got off?

Indeed....but that doesn't mean justice can't be tainted with either leftwing socio bias or with racial bias (or both) as well....
In the case of OJ Simpson, my opinion is that when you look at the socio / racial make up of the jury at his murder trial, it was race, not money that got Simpson off...

The jury by race consisted of 9 Blacks, 1 Hispanic, and 2 Whites....all jury members were Democrats....10 of the jury members were women, among whom were the only two white jury members....

Some other facts about the final jury: (1) None regularly read a newspaper, but eight regularly watch tabloid TV shows, (2) five thought it was sometimes appropriate to use force on a family member, (3) all were Democrats, (4) five reported that they or another family member had had a negative experience with the police, (5) nine thought that Simpson was less likely to be a murderer because he was a professional athlete.

The racial composition of the initial jury pool differed considerably from the racial compostion of the final jury. The pool was 40% white, 28% black, 17% Hispanic, and 15% Asian.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ft...ypage.html

As for racial issues, no, it shouldn't be used as an excuse for crime, but it also shouldn't be used as an excuse for dismissing crime, either. If we look at high crime areas and say "Oh, it's just a bunch of black thugs killing each other," why can't we look at the sociological root problems that lead those 'black thugs' to kill each other? I've met more than my fair share of people from those environments, and joining a gang and involving yourself in crime can almost be something they're born into instead of something they choose. I mean, if you can't walk the streets without worrying about being robbe or shot at, if you can't trust the police to help you, if you're so poor that you can't get out of the projects or even really have decent food, yeah, crime starts to look tempting.

As for the OJ case, yeah, I do think the issues that you mentioned all came into play, but those are still sub-issues that were only brought into play because of his lawyers. You noticed how he filed for bankruptcy shortly after his trial, right? Want to guess why? My guess is Johnny Cochran got most of Simpson's money. It's not just prestige, it's about finding a hotshot legal team that can get you away with anything.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Just to add, a lot of the assault statistics are skewed by violence on a night out on Fridays and Saturdays (I found figures a while back based on police areas in various English and welsh counties that saw 'violent crime' escalate massively on Fridays and Saturdays).

That is an issue that revolves around issues with the so-called 'drink culture' that exists in some areas around the country (I dispute this idea to a degree but it certainly is a problem in some areas)

Also, the figures (If I can find them, which I will attempt to do) would show violent crimes heavily centralised in some of the poorer inner city areas and in popular 'drinking' areas throughout various cities.

I think you'll agree, the last thing you want to do is add a gun to a scenario like that.

Assault-while-drunk is assault nevertheless, lots of things escalate during happy hour (lets not forget ufo sightings), lol. As far as I was aware, poorer inner city areas are uniformly more violent just about anywhere they care to track the stats on those lines. That's not skewing, that's cultural and statistical parity.

In any case, waving a gun around drunk is as bad an idea as driving drunk and for the very same reasons, won't get any disagreement from me on that count.

I agree, it is assault nevertheless, but the context of that assault is what I'm getting at. In the US, as a layman on US social convention and society per se, the issue appears to be a combination of poor social welfare structures combined with generally very easy access to guns and ammunition. This, I contend, is a problem across the board, whereas in the UK, its very much a localized issue in some (but not all) city wards and only on certain nights.

Making gun ownership illegal in the UK context is very much a logical decision as the types of assault are not the types of assault where having a gun would make any sense (one wold be more likely to be convicted of murdering someone in the crossfire).

There's also the issue of who is perpetrating these crimes,. I don't have stats to back it up, but I'm willing to bet that the overwhelming vast majority of recorded 'assaults' in the UK are committed by the same people and in the same locales. This links down to a re-offending rate that is pretty poor (50% in some cases), which again,Mather than use the word skews, creates an impression of the UK being violent when really, it isn't. Is actually pretty peaceful, and you'll rarely if ever be a victim of crime (from personal experience, I was born in one of the poorest east London constituencies [hackney], lived in some of the poorest areas of England's second city [Birmingham], which is where I still live, and have never been a victim of crime except for one burglary. Now this is just anecdote of course, but as far as I can recollect, none of my friends or acquaintances have been a victim of assault either, although I could be wrong).

On the note of the OP, I have never understood why introducing a gun to the situation would automatically make everything safer.

[Brakeman]

On the note of the OP, I have never understood why introducing a gun to the situation would automatically make everything safer.

When a violent incident threatens or occurs you call someone with the ability to protect you the best they can. Sometimes the gun owner is a cop sometimes not. The U.S. is very different from the U.K. A better comparison is seen in variation within the U.S.

The real issue is male bullying. They want to impose their will on others without any respect. When this is done with weapons it turns deadly.

[The Grand Nudger]

I agree, it is assault nevertheless, but the context of that assault is what I'm getting at. In the US, as a layman on US social convention and society per se, the issue appears to be a combination of poor social welfare structures combined with generally very easy access to guns and ammunition. This, I contend, is a problem across the board, whereas in the UK, its very much a localized issue in some (but not all) city wards and only on certain nights.

Making gun ownership illegal in the UK context is very much a logical decision as the types of assault are not the types of assault where having a gun would make any sense (one wold be more likely to be convicted of murdering someone in the crossfire).

There's also the issue of who is perpetrating these crimes,. I don't have stats to back it up, but I'm willing to bet that the overwhelming vast majority of recorded 'assaults' in the UK are committed by the same people and in the same locales. This links down to a re-offending rate that is pretty poor (50% in some cases), which again,Mather than use the word skews, creates an impression of the UK being violent when really, it isn't. Is actually pretty peaceful, and you'll rarely if ever be a victim of crime (from personal experience, I was born in one of the poorest east London constituencies [hackney], lived in some of the poorest areas of England's second city [Birmingham], which is where I still live, and have never been a victim of crime except for one burglary. Now this is just anecdote of course, but as far as I can recollect, none of my friends or acquaintances have been a victim of assault either, although I could be wrong).

On the note of the OP, I have never understood why introducing a gun to the situation would automatically make everything safer.

Similar situation here in the US on all counts. Crime as a statistic is condensed into relatively small areas, repeat offenses and career criminals shouldering a hefty portion of that overall pie. I could tell identical anecdotal stories all day long - but here's the reality about crime stats.

The stats you see are only those crimes investigated and prosecuted (sometime crimes reported - but not followed up make it in there as well). Every study you'll find on crime stats will always been with the disclaimer that the overall rates are - in all likelihood- much higher for a vast majority of crimes. The country you live in is not safer than the stats would imply, but more dangerous. That, of course, doesn't mean that it's more dangerous -for you- any more than the US is more dangerous -for me-.

(these similarities btw, are the very reasons that have led some to conclude that the trouble with -gun-violence- has less to do with the guns than it has to do with the social and economic status of those holding them. Consider, for example, that sparsely populated but very poor areas of the us account for the crushing majority of gun ownership - IE "rednecks with 30 guns each" .........but very little of the crime pie, even less of the "gun crime" pie.)

[TaraJo]

On the note of the OP, I have never understood why introducing a gun to the situation would automatically make everything safer.

It won't, but that's the solution provided by the gun manufacturers. They're the people who stand to get more money if they can sell more guns and they stand to lose money if restrictions or regulations are placed on guns. This is why the NRA responds to every incident of gun violence by saying "More guns!"

[Ryantology]

...it's seems as if they're making excuses for violent crime and violent criminals,...that we should be understanding and sympathetic to the poor sad violent criminal because, after all, it's not really his fault...he's just a product of his environment....

I knew you would not find any examples here. Whenever I see someone preface the socio-economic causes of crime with "it's not his fault", it is a rightwinger setting up a strawman every single time.

Poor social and economic situations do undoubtedly make it much more likely for people living in them to turn to criminal behavior. It does not excuse a single instance of criminal activity to state this fact.

[Minimalist]

The body count is up to 836 as of 1/13/13.... pretty close to the total of 840 Americans who died at the First Battle of Bull Run.

But...what do the gun nuts care about body counts as long as they can stroke their dicks while holding their precious guns?

[Brian37]

The body count is up to 836 as of 1/13/13.... pretty close to the total of 840 Americans who died at the First Battle of Bull Run.

But...what do the gun nuts care about body counts as long as they can stroke their dicks while holding their precious guns?

Yea, when I jerk off my porn doesn't kill me or other people.

"Guns And Ammo" is the nutter's porn, and an assault riffle is their centerfold.

These nuts also fail to consider this. If everyone gets to have assault riffles that would also include their political rivals like us. And where does it stop? Do we all have the right as individuals to rocket launchers and tanks and fighter jets too?

These gun nutters are fine with "We the people" but what they really mean is the same petulant attitude of a child "It's only fair when I get what I want". In a pluralisitic society we decide, and we don't always get everything we want all the time.