Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > What happened to the Wild West?      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 2
What happened to the Wild West?Page 1 of 4    (1, 2, 3, 4)

If everyone (or more people) carried a gun,

Wouldn't it make the jobs of police officers easier?
&
Wouldn't criminals would think twice before attacking/raping/robbing & carjacking people?


Yes; that's why you don't hear much about Kennesaw. The stats fly in the face of the government, that would like to take away the people's guns and afford the government's own brand of protection (a racket) for the "greater good" of "society" (theirs, not yours).
 yna6
Joined: 1/21/2007
Msg: 3
What happened to the Wild West?
Posted: 7/4/2009 9:29:39 AM
Let's take a look at the "criminals" in order to answer this question. Basically, there are three types of criminals...broke down into subsets.
The basic three are the "violent" or "career" type...don't care about anything and commit crimes as an everyday act. Nothing "physically" wrong with their brain. Includes drug dealers, mass murderers, armed robbers, etc
Second are the "crime of opportunity" type. They see a chance to gain something and take the chance. Looters and such.
Third are the "unintentional" type...doing somehting wrong either by force of circumstance and then having to pay for it through criminal court, or not having the mental capacity to know they did wrong. Poor schmuck who shoots an intruder in the home, but gets him in the back...thereby bringing the full extent of the law down on himself.
Most of these "criminals" would prefer "easier pickings". But there are the few who would not care. they would be a danger to everyone. As far as I'm concerned...an armed criminal is NOT armed to protect themselves but to commision a crime under threat of force, or by force. Therefore they have given up the "right" to protection under the laws and it should be "open season" on them. The "law" does not see it that way. Then again, the "law" is an azz in many cases.
I could offer a few suggestions....like the "road ragers" who would feel "justified" taking a pot shot at the guy who cut them off. Perhaps the woman walking who thought she was being "stalked", and shot first to ask questions later" and then found out it was a new neighbour in her own building.
Sure...there "could" be accidents and also a few mistakes and some would definitly need their attitudes adjusted. But many people will escalate the violence rather than tone it down. (Guilty of it myself...I will defend myself and my home rather than run...and face the charges afterwards....been there done that...)
But...if everywhere adopted the "guns in the homes" attitudes...where would the "wolves" hunt? There would be no place left for them...so they'd have to escalate their violent tendancies in order to continue their criminal careers. Which may result in more of them being killed...but also in "victims" being killed.
I figure it would send a real messaage out though...."we are people...NOT sheeple...so be prepared to kill in order to violate us! Otherwise you, yourself will be taking your own life into your hands...and your intended victims will NOT be merciful."
Crime rates would drop...but violent crimes may increase slightly, until the idiots get the message that we will NOT be cowed under by criminals.
The police and the laws cannot protect us any longer. They can only pick up the pieces of shattered lives and try to bring those responsible to the courts for punishment. By not allowing the laws to be broken in the first place, people will be living a far better life. Not to mention the lower crime rates. Less burden on police and courts.. Etc.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 4
What happened to the Wild West?
Posted: 7/4/2009 9:33:47 AM
@ yna6

Well said and a good argument for "vigilante justice."
 yna6
Joined: 1/21/2007
Msg: 5
What happened to the Wild West?
Posted: 7/4/2009 2:17:05 PM
No...not so much "vigilante justice"...more like stopping a crime rather than actually hunting a criminal down and punishing them without due process.
Example...someone breaks into my home. Why? Obviously to commit a crime. What possible other reason could they have? If it was for "shelter" or something, that could well be taken into account. But if the home owner comes out and sees someone crawling out a window with their stereo system under their arms...here in Canada we don't have the right to stop them or injure them in any way. Huh? That is correct though. Otherwise WE can be charged. Catch him coming in...different story. You can stop him.
Perhaps if he was stopped by the homeowner, them we wouldn't have so many criminals. Those few still performing criminal acts would be those who killed or incapacitated their victims first. They would soon be weeded out though. I realize there would be a spate of gunfights and such....but the end result would be safer communities.
As I said...sometimes the law is an azz.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 7
view profile
History
What happened to the Wild West?
Posted: 7/4/2009 4:40:36 PM

If everyone (or more people) carried a gun,

Wouldn't it make the jobs of police officers easier?
&
Wouldn't criminals would think twice before attacking/raping/robbing & carjacking people?
Yes and no. If everyone was just given open season to shoot their guns any time they felt like it, then it would end up like mayhem. But if it was permissible to shoot someone in the event of them robbing your home, or attacking you, or trying to rape you, or trying to carjack you, and it can be proved later that you had good reason to suspect this was what was going on at the time, then criminals would find another way to make money. They'd probably join the other criminals who've all gone into identity theft.

But the law frowns on shooting criminals. It put a British farmer in prison for 3 years, all because 2 guys tried to rob his house, he defended his property, and shot one of them as they were running away. Almost ALL the British people thought he should be given a medal. The law doesn't seem to be too worried about making laws that the people want.


(but might just make smarter criminals through survival of the smartest. I don't think the dumb ones would last long)
Police have such a hard time catching smarter criminals, that most of their arrests consist of the dumb ones. If this was law, then the dumb criminals would end up dead, or in hospital, so the police wouldn't get any credit for arresting them, and since they really don't arrest many smart criminals anyway, their arrest rates would go right down. People might start asking what we pay the police for in the first place. That might be another reason why it's not allowed.
 fortran
Joined: 2/21/2004
Msg: 8
view profile
History
What happened to the Wild West?
Posted: 7/4/2009 5:40:21 PM
Fine, someone has run across a single instance where the local government forcing residents to have guns _APPEARS_ to have reduced crime rates. Are their other jurisdictions where similar laws were inacted? What results are they seeing?

Is there some unique quality about this community which makes this result predictable? What would need to happen for this situation to change there?

What constitutes a gun? Handgun? Berretta 0.22? Colt .45? Rifle? Winchester .308? A .50 Sniper rifle? Tommy gun? Shotgun? M-16? Bazooka? British M777 Howitzer?

Does this work for any type of weapon? Can we force all households to have a crossbow, and still have this work? How about bombs? Is a bundle of 10 sticks of TNT equivalent to a gun?

I'm sorry. For me, this story is just about a statistical aberration. It appears to have worked here, now. It may not work in the future at this location, and probably doesn't work elsewhere now (or in the future). I am not doubting the accuracy of the story, I just think it is a statistical fluke.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 9
view profile
History
What happened to the Wild West?
Posted: 7/4/2009 6:23:08 PM
RE Msg: 10 by Cyke:
I heard someone say that in the UK they have now even outlawed the carrying of knives! I'm sure happy I don't live there.
Yes, they have, and for good reason. A few teenage boys took to carrying them. Then other teenage boys got knifed by them, and they all got scared. Now, a very high proportion of teenage boys, and some teenage girls carry knives. When asked, they invariably seem to reply, "in case someone else has them". It's caused an outbreak of stabbings amongst the teenage population. In the first few months of this year, there were 1-2 stabbings every week.

No-one would care if they carried knives. But that seems to lead to them being used, and that's the problem.
 kornbluth
Joined: 12/25/2006
Msg: 11
view profile
History
What happened to the Wild West?
Posted: 7/5/2009 6:02:06 AM

If everyone (or more people) carried a gun, Wouldn't it make the jobs of police officers easier? & Wouldn't criminals would think twice before attacking/raping/robbing & carjacking people?

No. A gun is useless unless you wear it during all waking hours and keep it under the pillow at night. If it's a pistol, you have to practise a LOT, and if you do that, you'll notice that sometimes you can punch a hole thru a hole, and sometimes you can't hit the ground with your hat. If you're taken by surprise and miss, who gets the "collateral damage?"

I don't advocate any abridgement of the right to bear arms. Some people are good at it, but most are not.
 AwP
Joined: 12/31/2006
Msg: 13
view profile
History
What happened to the Wild West?
Posted: 7/5/2009 10:31:05 AM

Fine, someone has run across a single instance where the local government forcing residents to have guns _APPEARS_ to have reduced crime rates. Are their other jurisdictions where similar laws were inacted? What results are they seeing?

I don't think any other place in the U.S. has a similar law. I'd guess that results would be similar, but until some other municipality takes the chance to find out, we'll never know for sure.

What is your idea of a "smart" criminal?
All criminals are stupid.
For those who disagree, why don't you give us an example of a "smart" crime?

The criminals who don't get caught are either smart or lucky. An example of a "smart" crime is all of the crimes that remain unsolved, or did you think that all crimes get solved? Just because someone isn't moral doesn't automatically make them stupid.
 Super Ryan
Joined: 9/15/2007
Msg: 14
What happened to the Wild West?
Posted: 7/5/2009 11:23:04 AM

What is your idea of a "smart" criminal?
All criminals are stupid.
For those who disagree, why don't you give us an example of a "smart" crime?

How about Frank Abagnale Jr.?
He was the basis for the movie "Catch Me If You Can".
Commited some of the most daring frauds in history, got caught, now he's a multi-millionaire working for all the people he ripped off.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 15
What happened to the Wild West?
Posted: 7/5/2009 1:42:15 PM
@ Scorp

<div class="quote">The law doesn't seem to be too worried about making laws that the people want.
That's because the laws are written to serve the political & sociological "needs" of our "masters" instead of enforcing people's rights and administering justice.

<div class="quote">No-one would care if they carried knives. But that seems to lead to them being used, and that's the problem.
Do you think that someone who wants to injure or kill somebody else will worry about being caught with a gun or a knife? I'm sure the psycopaths & killers are shaking in their boots about the new laws. You know who aren't going to have guns & knives?...The people who need them to protect themselves from the psycopathic killers & robbers, who will now feel relatively safe & secure in the knowledge that the next person they attcak and/or rob isn't going to be similarly armed. After all, what law-abiding citizen wants to break the law, just to protect himself. Only a naive, gullible fool would ever abide by such "laws."

It sounds like a stupid slogan, but it really is logical and true: If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them! Everyone else is a victim ripe for the plucking.

@ fortran

<div class="quote">Fine, someone has run across a single instance where the local government forcing residents to have guns _APPEARS_ to have reduced crime rates. Are their other jurisdictions where similar laws were inacted? What results are they seeing?...I just think it is a statistical fluke.
Why not look at comparative before & after studies anywhere "anti-gun legislation was brought in? I think you'll find (If the Kennesaw study is valid) that outlawing guns has either no effect on, or increases the incidence of violent crime (be sure to deduct out gun accidents and cases os self defense that the courts ruled (wrongly in my opinion) as "criminal", since these skewed stats can be deceptively utilized to falsely portray guns as an evil.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 16
view profile
History
What happened to the Wild West?
Posted: 7/5/2009 2:29:07 PM
RE Msg: 25 by JustDukky:
It sounds like a stupid slogan, but it really is logical and true: If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them! Everyone else is a victim ripe for the plucking.
That happened here too. Guns have always been illegal in the UK without a licence. Over 10 years ago, they outlawed knives. All that happened was that there were so many illegal knives and guns in circulation, that the police declared a general amnesty on getting rid of them. They just put big yellow bins outside police stations, and said that anyone could dump a gun, knife, or other illegal weapon in there, without being prosecuted for it.

We don't have a good answer about what to do with guns and knives. When more people have them, more of them are used in crimes. When we make them illegal, more illegal ones show up.

I'd suggest that we just make everyone have them, but knowing how many people in the UK get drunk and end up in punch-ups (we just came #1 most violent country in the whole of Europe), we'd just end up even worse.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 17
What happened to the Wild West?
Posted: 7/5/2009 3:06:31 PM
I'd suggest that we just make everyone have them


That's what they did in Kennesaw Georgia and it worked out quite well for them. If I'm not mistaken they have the lowest violent crime rate of any comparably-sized community in the entire country.


knowing how many people in the UK get drunk and end up in punch-ups (we just came #1 most violent country in the whole of Europe), we'd just end up even worse.


A lot of bars here won't let someone in if they are carrying a weapon; it has to be turned in upon entry and returned when leaving. However, It is up to the discretion of the bar owner; if the patron is considered too drunk to be trusted with their weapon, he is told it will be returned when he comes back sober. From what I've seen, that little system seems to work.

England has long been known for it's strict gun laws, but knives? Do you have to get a "lethal weapon" permit to cut a steak?
Forgive me for laughing, but I find it no less than highly comical that a country that even forbids playing with knives has one of the highest violent crime rates in the (so-called) civilized world. Do you think we could accept that as evidence that anti-weapon legislation achieves the opposite of its (supposedly) intended goal?
 fortran
Joined: 2/21/2004
Msg: 18
view profile
History
What happened to the Wild West?
Posted: 7/5/2009 4:36:06 PM
I still don't see this premise as being useful. Forcing everyone to have a "gun" doesn't equalize anything. A .177 pellet gun does not compare to a .45 handgun or to a .50 sniper's rifle. A RPG is in a sense a gun. Last time I brought up a modern British howitzer (M777). It is not able to be "carried" by a single person, but it is a gun. If one goes to muskets (which aren't rifled), they probably have the worst accuracy. There are variables at play in your example which are not displayed. If everyone has about the same kind of gun, and about the same skills with that gun; there is in a sense a level playing field there.

A few years back, I ran across an exercise to draft a constitution up for a hypothetical lunar (on the Moon) colony. Of course, some American had the right to bear arms in that document. Which I never could understand. You are living in a vacuum. One stray bullet and everybody dies. It is about the same as having a (big) bomb.

There has got to be other ways of reducing crime rates.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 19
What happened to the Wild West?
Posted: 7/6/2009 7:26:24 AM
Under natural law and under common law, men or women have the right to protect themselves and may defend themselves & protect their property using whatever reasonable force may be necessary. To me, this means you can use any weapon for self defense so long as it is reasonable to do so.

To my mind there would be weapons that no reasonable man would use for self defence & property protection: A .50 cal. sniper rifle is designed for taking people out at several hundred yards distance and a stray bullet could be lethal to an innocent person miles away. It is obviously an offensive weapon, unwieldy at close range and a hazard to innocent bystanders. I doubt that carrying one would qualify as reasonable personal protection. Hand grenades could be considered reasonable weapons for home-based defense of property, but not for personal carry in an environment populated with innocent people. They would pose an unreasonable hazard to the public peace and the lives of innocent people.

It would not have been unreasonable for someone like David Koresh to use howitzers, .50 cal. machine guns, flame throwers, mortars or mines on that fateful day they moved in on him with tanks. Such a response would have easily met the "reasonable force" requirement for self defense and property protection.
 no_excuses_please
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 20
What happened to the Wild West?
Posted: 7/6/2009 8:38:31 AM
I'm a responsible firearms owner and I think that it would be a poor idea for most people to own weapons.
While I'm not saying that there should be bans like in NYC or Washington DC, I DO believe that most people have unrealistic view about the efficacy of firearms.

That,coupled w/ the unwillingness of most people to take firearms training and a general lack of maturity in our society, makes general firearms ownership and unwise proposition,at best.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 21
What happened to the Wild West?
Posted: 7/6/2009 6:58:53 PM

That,coupled w/ the unwillingness of most people to take firearms training and a general lack of maturity in our society, makes general firearms ownership and unwise proposition,at best.


I'd say that came about as a matter of societal conditioning. However, if what you say is generally true, how do you explain Kennesaw? Maybe given the chance and a few courses in responsible use, most people are quite capable of handling firearms safely.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 22
What happened to the Wild West?
Posted: 7/6/2009 8:13:03 PM

do you like the idea of every pedestrian packing a burner, or does that bother you?


Doesn't bother me in the slightest; in fact, I wish it were so.


statistical data on its own cannot be used to support any hypothesis, that correlation does not infer causation.


Nevertheless, the statistical data supports my logical thesis that everyone carrying weapons makes for a significant deterrent to violent crime. It should therefore be encouraged, not discouraged.
 nipoleon
Joined: 12/27/2005
Msg: 23
view profile
History
What happened to the Wild West?
Posted: 7/6/2009 11:37:20 PM
I tend to resist the temptation to comment on gun issues.
There is probably no issue filled with so much myth, fantasy, and daydreaming than the issue of guns (even more than religion ) .

The whole idea of mandating that all households have a gun is fantasy and self serving.
I've known people who were former professional burglars. No burglar with any brains ever breaks into a house when somebody's at home. Having a gun there only makes for one more thing of value they can steal, when you're not there .

There is an infinite number of ways to protect your home from burglary that are cheaper, safer, and more effective than having a gun.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 24
What happened to the Wild West?
Posted: 7/7/2009 9:17:45 AM

The whole idea of mandating that all households have a gun is fantasy and self serving.


No less so than the whole idea of mandating that they don't.
Who has the right to tell you what you can or can't do if you are a free man?
 no_excuses_please
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 25
What happened to the Wild West?
Posted: 7/7/2009 9:54:56 AM

I'd say that came about as a matter of societal conditioning. However, if what you say is generally true, how do you explain Kennesaw? Maybe given the chance and a few courses in responsible use, most people are quite capable of handling firearms safely.


I lived near Kennesaw about 15 years ago.
IMHO (and I think that people that reside in or near Atlanta might agree) Kennesaw is shielded from a lot the "big city" crime issues that plague Atlanta primarily because it has a suburban populace and it is distant from the high crime areas of Atlanta.

Most criminals (especially violent ones) are too lazy to commute to commit criminal acts and,, as such are primarily dangerous to people in their own neighborhoods and surrounding communities.

Kennesaw passed a law that for its citizenz (as of yet) has been mostly non-threatening,if somewhat ineefective.
According to people I know that still live in Marietta and Acworth, there's still plenty of property crime in Kennesaw.
And dealing w/ that w/ a firearm is,at best, a dubious proposition.
IMHO,Kennesaw is an abberation and nothing more.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 26
What happened to the Wild West?
Posted: 7/7/2009 11:47:27 AM

Kennesaw is shielded from a lot the "big city" crime issues that plague Atlanta primarily because it has a suburban populace and it is distant from the high crime areas of Atlanta.


Be that as it may, it doesn't explaing the precipitous DROP in crime in Kennesaw after the law mandating firearms came into place.

The "Wild West" was nowhere near as wild as the writers & producers of "westerns" would have us believe. To spite the fact that many settlements were "lawless" in today's terms, the people made their own law and lived by it. It seems then that all the fears of a lawless anarchy where people wouldn't know how to survive, or how to take care of themselves, or to abide by some sort of law, are only the result of programming by our modern governments, who want us to think that (and therefore propagate the myth of anarchy), so they can "take care of us" in the manner to which we have become accustomed (addicted?), presumably so they can continue to treat us like a resource (human resource - cattle?) that can be exploited for profit. The history of frontier settlements pretty well disproves that hypothesis of lawlessness & anarchy.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 27
What happened to the Wild West?
Posted: 7/7/2009 4:23:22 PM

why try and pull a gun on a guy who has a gun. shoot him then simply rob the dead body and add to your gun collection.


Well, for one thing, instead of armed robbery, the charge would now be 1st degree murder, which (presumably) carries a much stiffer sentence, if not the death penalty in some jurisdictions.


how many times do people get mad at each other and throw things and hit each other in a home. what if every gun had a gun or too so that janie, granny and little teddy all had ready access to a shootin iron?


People have been having arguments, getting mad and even killing one another over it since the dawn of time. Back when most every home had firearms in it, I don't seem to recall much fuss being made about all the gun homicides. But even if it were so, obviously if a gun isn't handy, a big butcher knife will do. What are we going to do; register steak knives as lethal weapons (lots of tax revenue there), or ban them altogether & make people eat with their hands? What's outlawed after that, blunt instruments & rocks?


some actually believe the possession of guns would allow them to resist a government gone mad

Isn't that the very reason why the founding fathers included the right to keep & bear arms in the Constitution? Was Jefferson a wingnut; or just prophetic?


if owning a gun would have solved the crime problem guns would be passed out long ago

It seems to have solved a lot of the crime problem in Kennesaw, so why aren't they passing similar laws all over the country? I suspect it's because the government doesn't want the people armed when they bring down some draconian laws.


they have something to gain. do you?


You bet I do! I stand to gain by fulfilling my duty to my fellow man in ensuring his rights remain intact. There can be no higher service to Man.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 29
What happened to the Wild West?
Posted: 7/7/2009 7:59:45 PM
Under the rules of scientific process your hypothesis is wild and unsupported by testable results of reproducible experimentation and observation in nature.


Under those rules, it is neither wild nor unsupported. It is also testable simply by altering the gun laws in other jurisdictions and observing the changes in the statistics of crime in those jurisdictions. I made the hypothesis long before I heard of Kennesaw, the stats of which only serve as scientific evidence that supports it, which made the "anomaly" of Kennesaw a prediction of the hypothesis and thus the so-called "anomaly" lends great credence to it, scientifically speaking.


countries with stricter gun control have lower murder rates.


That may be strictly correlational, though I suspect the rationale for your hypothesis is sound. However the risk/benefit ratio of gun laws must be considered. It is a simple fact that an unarmed population is at the mercy of its leadership; it may not find it so easy to rebel against tyranny. (Can you imagine what would have happened if the Thirteen Colonies had not been able to own guns by law? Would Hitler have come to power, or would there have been an insurrection at his 1st election? Would he have been able to waltz through Poland if every peasant along the way had been able to shoot back? Where did the guns come from for the Warsaw Ghetto rebellion? I'm pretty sure they were outlawed. Did that make the Jewish rebels criminals?)What about the assumption of competence? Is it unreasonable to think that people are innocent until proven guilty of incompetence? If so, is it not an infringement on their right to acquire & own anything they want so long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights? How is owning a gun harming anyone else? If it is not, then is it not tyranny to deny someone that right? This paragraph is getting long, but it can be summed up with a question: Isn't a slight increase in gun accidents and the murder rate a relatively small price to pay to ensure the preservation of human rights and prevention of tyranny? After all, freedom has always been bought with blood; why are we so quick to give away, that which was bought at such a high price?
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 32
What happened to the Wild West?
Posted: 7/8/2009 8:59:55 AM

I find it hard to believe that a public armed with pistols and rifles is going to fight off a tyrannical government armed with heavy machine guns, grenade launchers, attach helicopters, and various armored vehicles.

Would you deny people the right to own heavy machine guns, grenade launchers, attack helicopters & armored vehicles if they had the money to buy them? Why?
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > What happened to the Wild West?