Any chance for a reasonable discussion about guns?

In reply to Mr_Asa :

From a quick search it looks like the accepted number is 150 and 20 since 1992. That's static compared to the 1/3/5 year reoccurance rate of violent offenders. But there is generally promising news that positive steps may be happening in rehabilitation.  

1 year recidivism rates are down from 30.4% to 19.9%. 3 year rates have dropped from 50% to 39%. The issue comes down to 5 years out of prison 71% of violent offenders are back in which is down from 77% but still a staggering number. Studies were based on people released in 2005 and 2012. I would love to see the 2019 numbers overlaid as well.

https://counciloncj.org/recidivism_report/#:~:text=Criminal%20activity%20is%20not%20highly,(32.4%25)%20%E2%80%93%20Table%2011.

Criminal recidivism comes from a lot of factors. I'm not an expert, but my limited understanding seems to be:

1. Some people take to crime because it seems like the best opportunity they have.
2. The stigma of being a criminal reduces opportunities post conviction, reinforcing point one.
 

The other aspect that seems to affect recidivism (especially violent ones) is that some people are just horrible people and will always be.

And those few people seem to be responsible for a large disproportionate percentage of the crimes.

aircooled said:

The other aspect that seems to affect recidivism (especially violent ones) is that some people are just horrible people and will always be.

And those few people seem to be responsible for a large disproportionate percentage of the crimes.

This. There will always be evil in the world. The illusion of "safety" is just that, an illusion. One is never "safe" and to act like they are is silly.There are just levels of risk. Freedom involves risk. Waking up involves risk. But these evil people are usually already known to law enforcement. Why can't we deal with them first and see how that helps.

Rons said:

As this is a reasonable discussion do Americans coming to Canada feel hard done by Canadian laws around guns? Are Americans aware there is no Second amendment rights in Canada?

As a snowbird who lives in Canada every summer, I'm very aware that there are far fewer gun rights up north.  I always marveled at the clear delineation on one side of the St Lawrence a large majority of people have guns, feel the need for guns, will very verbally shout about the need to have guns, and 3 miles across the river no one really cares.  Very few Canadians (at least in Ontario and Quebec where I spend most of my time) have any desire or care in the world about guns... and yet Canadians enjoy all the same basic freedoms we do.

It really pinpoints the States' frenzy of fear over needing guns (not a judgement, just an observation).  Canadians have the same basic mistrust of their government, the same basic freedoms (minus some guns), and yet crime is remarkably lower north of the border.

I have never felt the need for having guns other than my hunting hobby, which is perfectly permissible in Canada.  I have hunted in Canada, taken a long rifle across the border without issue, and all I can say is... pretty nice place ya got up there.  You must be doing something right.

I guess here in the states we'll keep trying the same thing over and over and keep expecting a different outcome.

bobzilla said:

In reply to Driven5 :

Believe me there are condemnations about all GFZ's from 2A.

The only things I've seen or heard from the individual and organizational advocates that are the most visibly vocal against GFZ's in any other situation, is a vacuum of deafening silence about setting up a GFZ at a forum against GFZ's for the sole purpose of allowing someone who practices actively choosing to be a walking GFZ to preach against GFZ's.

If you can provide links to sources of significance in the public eye that are (or were) condemning it, I'd be interested to see them.

In reply to Driven5 :

I never said there were. Im saying that in the 2A world there is internal condemnation and they handle that with letter writing campaigns and calls to their local and federal legislatures. In fact I explicitly stated that they do not publicly protest in general. The protesters you see are generally passionate members tryingg ro draw attention to their issue. Most of us prefer the grey man principle. But I dabble on both sides of that fence and the two have no idea that there's any other position than their own and anyone that has a differing opinion is the enemy. You know, a lot like this entire thread. IT's tiring and sickening. 

But that's not what you want. You want your strawman so you can have it. 

aircooled said:

The other aspect that seems to affect recidivism (especially violent ones) is that some people are just horrible people and will always be.

And those few people seem to be responsible for a large disproportionate percentage of the crimes.

You're absolutely correct. The chronic 6%  Martin Wolfgang's birth cohort study. About 6% of the study population caused over 50% of the crime. It's been known for a long time but it's actually harder than one would think to deal with them. 

Also more depressing , look up the Martinson "Nothing Works" doctrine. When I was getting my criminology degree this was the best/most disappointing thing I learned. Comparing rehabilitation, punitive sentencing, all the different styles of corrections (soft on crime/tough on crime) and there wasn't a big difference in the success rate of anything tried thus far through the 1970s. Add the War on Drugs and we incarcerated WAY more since then then the numbers have just recently started dropping. Criminal justice policies are super complex, have lots of unintended side effects, and without giant long-term multifaceted programs with counseling and aftercare etc etc.etc......they mostly don't work. 

bobzilla said:

But that's not what you want. You want your strawman so you can have it. 

So is your preferred pronoun "pot" or "kettle"?

I wasn't at all talking about 'protest' in the sense of gatherings of people shouting in public spaces, as you keep referencing. Believe it or not, but the majority of the people on BOTH sides of ANY issue prefer the gray man principle... Which belies the fact that every movement has leaders, organizers, representatives, and mouthpieces in the public eye trying to garner and support  for and bolster their cause. Without their very publicly both professing their beliefs and objecting to (protesting) that which they oppose, the movement would cease to exist. It is those direct and indirect spokespeople for the movement to whom I was explicitly referring.

aircooled said:

The other aspect that seems to affect recidivism (especially violent ones) is that some people are just horrible people and will always be.

And those few people seem to be responsible for a large disproportionate percentage of the crimes.

The Pareto Principle in reverse, so to speak...

crankwalk (Forum Supporter) said:

 

....Also more depressing , look up the Martinson "Nothing Works" doctrine. When I was getting my criminology degree this was the best/most disappointing thing I learned. Comparing rehabilitation, punitive sentencing, all the different styles of corrections (soft on crime/tough on crime) and there wasn't a big difference in the success rate of anything tried thus far through the 1970s. Add the War on Drugs and we incarcerated WAY more since then then the numbers have just recently started dropping. Criminal justice policies are super complex, have lots of unintended side effects, and without giant long-term multifaceted programs with counseling and aftercare etc etc.etc......they mostly don't work. 

Like you say, complex, but I would think a more focused attention on the violent few (used to be called super predators I believe, but that's a no-no now I suspect) would at least reduce the violent crimes.  Simply removing these (vast majority are men 18-25 I believe) from society until they are older I feel pretty confident would help a lot.  Yeah it costs to imprison them, but how much does it cost to let them roam?  The concept of reforming such people is generally ridiculous, let age do the work for you.

Three strikes laws seem to be an attempt to do that (which of course you have to be careful what some of those "strikes" are).  Of note regarding that, the DA of Los Angeles recently had to be sued to get him to prosecute the three strikes laws that are on the books (yes, the DA, you know ,they guy who's entire job is to implement the criminal laws!).  The same guy refuses to give gun enhancements, gang enhancements or resisting arrest charges... guess what that encourages? 

The lack of ability to predict simple behavioral responses to such things by these people is absolutely dumbfounding to me.  And yes, this is very much related to gun violence.

Weird (sad) update:  I just heard that the guy who killed the two cops in El Monte recently, was arrested a few years ago (felon with a firearm and meth) but the DA (see above) refused fully prosecure or use it as a strike and he was given 20 days instead of 3 years (would have been far more with a strike).  Even weirder? This DA has a mandate that his office would pay for the funeral of anyone shot by the police (you know, because they are bad), so... because of that, he should pay for this POS's funeral!  (They claim they will not)

In reply to Driven5 :

And there isn't a bespoke mouth piece in this side. The NRA is a behemoth with its own priorities. There are some smaller groups but nothing that has the widespread impact of say a MDA. Locally we have a group forum where we organize to contact our state and fed reps along with other little things like cookouts and meets etc. old school and why we will likely never succeed. 
 

I can tell you that one side is playing a "at all costs" game to "win" while the other is trying to be left alone and treating everyone as they'd like to be treated. Getting continuously beaten down, brow beaten and called every name in the book gets old and tiring. Why do we always have to be playing these berkeleying games? Why do some need control over others? Why can't we just be left the berkeley alone to live our lives understanding that "safe" is a made up fairy tale and an excuse to trample peoples rights and freedoms (and that goes way beyond this discussion). 
 

I can't play this anymore. I am not calling people names or being aggressive. I'm tired. I just wanted to provide some facts and information to people that didn't appear to have them. Apparently that's not appreciated by some so once again I am out. 

In reply to bobzilla :

Wow... "Pot" it is then.

*sigh*

The subject is:

Any chance for a reasonable discussion about guns?

Please make it so.

In reply to bobzilla :

The question is what to do when the "rights and freedoms" of one group seem to be in direct contrast with the "rights and freedoms" of other groups.  Not to mention the interpretation of what those "rights and freedoms" are, which mean different things to different people, often drastically different, but both with basis in facts. The arguments come with debating the importance of some facts over others.  However, deciding one set of facts is more important doesn't automatically invalidate the others, just because we don't like them.

No solution will be perfect and there will still be failings in the laws and simple mistakes due to human error. But attempting to find some ground in between the two extremes is the only way forward. 

In reply to Noddaz :

My bad.

In my defense I DID say it was a discussion for a later time 

Using the US vs Canada gun ownership vs violence statement. 

Is Canada that much safer than the US? Or is it that they are far too polite to air out their dirty laundry? What is the percentage of violent crimes (murder, weapon involved crime etc not just guns) per capita when comparing the two countries? 

I am asking because I don't know. I always see weird crimes reported that make me think Canada is Cold Florida. Like the bath salt dude who beheaded a guy on the bus like it was a normal Wednesday thing. 

Is there less crime because there are less guns or because there are less people? Does their health care system create a better avenue for mental health assessment? Does the beautiful terrain and half your neighbors speaking French create a more symbiotic existence? Or is it because they get cool cars that we can't get in the US?

Noddaz said:

*sigh*

The subject is:

Any chance for a reasonable discussion about guns?

Please make it so.

 

It's tough to be reasonable when the same people jump in, get offended for some reason then announce they're out every few days. 

Ive been thinking about Red Flag Laws this morning.

NO. Dont want them.

I dont want some random person able to call in that Im dangerous or something just because they're upset with me.

Look up swatting.

Look at our cancel culture.

Just yesterday I was reading about an 'influencer' that got denied a ride on a horse due to her weight...her 'followers' then started to write negative Yelp reviews on a place they've never been. Or, in the past hour, as I was uploading items to TeachersPayTeachers and browsing their forum (I do so about 4 times a year) I noticed a lot of Social Studies/HIstory folks talking about having their content taken down for being 'inappropriate'...how dare you use the word "colored" when typing out the name of the NAACP. Yeah, that happened and is just one example of a long list of complaints I saw posted in the past two months.

We got a soft society, everyone gets so dang offended and they resort to 'safe' (for them) tactics to hurt folks they dont agree with.

Yeah, Im against Red Flag laws until there is some SERIOUS vetting of the accusation BEFORE any action is taken. This is America, you shouldnt have to forfeit your property just because someone is pissed at you. Even then, I worry.

hybridmomentspass said:

Yeah, Im against Red Flag laws until there is some SERIOUS vetting of the accusation BEFORE any action is taken. This is America, you shouldnt have to forfeit your property just because someone is pissed at you. Even then, I worry.

Its inconvenient but temporary.  I think its a worthy tradeoff to get guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals.

Do you have a different suggestion for that type of situation?  I.E. person with many firearms is exhibiting signs of mental instability

I do not. But I also dont think just busting up into someone's residence because of a 'tip' is a good thing either.

People die that way...it's happened

We arent going to solve the country's issues on here, and neither will our legislators. Evil will continue to be evil and, sadly, the regular folks will have more and more legislation put against them as it goes on.

One aspect that might help red flag laws is some sort of accuser responsibility.  As in, if you accuse someone in bad faith, you pay a serious penalty.  Accusers of course would need to be anonymous to the accused, but not to the authorities.

In reply to hybridmomentspass :

Tell me you have no idea how red flag laws work without telling me. 

Red flag laws allow family members or law enforcement to petition a court to order the temporary removal of firearms from a troubled person. The court determines if the person is at serious risk of harming themselves or others with a gun and, if so, temporarily orders the person to surrender the firearm.

LEO's are the ones doing the petitioning in 18 of the 19 states with red flag laws. All 19 require a hearing in court with evidence and the person who has the complaint. All 19 require the judge to issue the order and it's temporary in nature with follow up hearings set to restore those rights.

hybridmomentspass said:

Ive been thinking about Red Flag Laws this morning.

NO. Dont want them.

I dont want some random person able to call in that Im dangerous or something just because they're upset with me.

Look up swatting.

Look at our cancel culture.

Just yesterday I was reading about an 'influencer' that got denied a ride on a horse due to her weight...her 'followers' then started to write negative Yelp reviews on a place they've never been. Or, in the past hour, as I was uploading items to TeachersPayTeachers and browsing their forum (I do so about 4 times a year) I noticed a lot of Social Studies/HIstory folks talking about having their content taken down for being 'inappropriate'...how dare you use the word "colored" when typing out the name of the NAACP. Yeah, that happened and is just one example of a long list of complaints I saw posted in the past two months.

We got a soft society, everyone gets so dang offended and they resort to 'safe' (for them) tactics to hurt folks they dont agree with.

Yeah, Im against Red Flag laws until there is some SERIOUS vetting of the accusation BEFORE any action is taken. This is America, you shouldnt have to forfeit your property just because someone is pissed at you. Even then, I worry.

Honestly, all of this tells me that you've just heard what RFLs do and haven't looked into how they work. 

There's no "tip" from some random person.  There's no opportunity for anything like SWATTING.

It is a legal procedure and it takes a sheriff (or police chief, depends on the location) going to a judge with a recommendation that firearms be removed from a household.

Edit: I see Javelin has covered this. 

aircooled said:

One aspect that might help red flag laws is some sort of accuser responsibility.  As in, if you accuse someone in bad faith, you pay a serious penalty. 

And we both know that wont happen. Id love to see where if you make a false claim you have to serve the same penalty as a person would if guilty of that offense.