Gun control doesn't reduce crime (report)

[CFLarsen]

Claus, it's a personal opinion! What don't you get about that? I don't want to live in Boston, either, although I love to go there. Does that mean I'm making some kind of value judgement about Boston? I'd rather live out here in the country where I am than in the city of Charlotte; yet, I go into Charlotte all the time. Am I making a vlaue judgement there?

THIS is why you're a bigot, Claus. You turn every opinion someone expresses into some kind of personal value judgement against your beloved homeland.

You call Denmark a "tyranny" and you want us to believe the above? Considering the fact that you have been informed that your perception of Denmark is utterly wrong, who's the bigot here?

According to your Constitution he does! He has executive power and shares legislative power! So, you're ignoring your own Constitution!
...
Fact: The Danish Constitution gives the king full executive power and shared legislative power in §3: "Legislative authority shall be vested in the King and the Folketing conjointly. Executive authority shall be vested in the King." Fact: you and Kerberos say the king has no power. Conclusion: either you're lying or your Constitution is being ignored. Which is it?
...
Not if they exist "merely on an international scale." Then they're rights granted by an international body; they're authoritative rights, not human rights. You can't have it both ways.

It serves no purpose to discuss the Danish Constitution with you, since you refuse to learn.

Not if they exist "merely on an international scale." Then they're rights granted by an international body; they're authoritative rights, not human rights. You can't have it both ways.

Ah. So the UN is wrong to call them "human" rights? Sure....shanek will tell the world that he is right and they are wrong.

No, I'm listening; I'm just having the gall to point out contracitctions in what you say.

What you are advocating is not human rights; it's governmental rights or authoritative rights and "human rights" is nothing but a mislabel designed to cover that. They can only be human rights if all humans have them, regardless of what a majority or any governmental body, sovereign or international, says.

You say you believe in human rights. Yet every time I ask you where these rights come from, you cite an authority. Bogus.

So, where do they come from? God? Or are they natural laws?

 

[Iconoclast]

There's a reason Francis Scott Key ended every verse of "The Star-Spangled Banner" with "The land of the free and the home of the brave": because if you're not the home of the brave you cannot remain the land of the free.

I find it exceedingly difficult to believe that line could mean what you've described. The author chucked an "and" between two phrases, and you want to insist that it implies some sort of causality. Of course, such interpretations would go a long way towards explaining how that "well regulated militia" fiasco came about.

 

[CFLarsen]

There's a reason Francis Scott Key ended every verse of "The Star-Spangled Banner" with "The land of the free and the home of the brave": because if you're not the home of the brave you cannot remain the land of the free.

Yet another example of shanek feeling superior to other people: Only Americans are brave and free.

 

[shanek]

You call Denmark a "tyranny" and you want us to believe the above?

Strawman. I never called Denmark a "tyranny." I asked you what Constitutional protections are in place to stop the king from wielding tyrannical power. There's a difference.

Considering the fact that you have been informed that your perception of Denmark is utterly wrong, who's the bigot here?

You and Kerberos asserted it, but never wanted to justify your claim with regards to §3. You just keep insisting that I must be misunderstanding it.

It serves no purpose to discuss the Danish Constitution with you, since you refuse to learn.

One more instance of you refusing to answer the question.

Ah. So the UN is wrong to call them "human" rights?

I'm not debating the UN here; I'm debating YOU. And YOU, NOT the UN, said that these rights exist "merely on an international scale.

So, where do they come from? God? Or are they natural laws?

For the fiftieth time, it doesn't matter, so long as the rights are considered to exist outside any human authority. No government can grant them or take them away. And neither can any international authority. We have these rights because we have the ability to make decisions, act upon them, and be responsible for their consequences.

 

[CFLarsen]

Strawman. I never called Denmark a "tyranny." I asked you what Constitutional protections are in place to stop the king from wielding tyrannical power. There's a difference.

Yes, you called Denmark a tyranny. You were discussing monarchies with Leif Roar, and you referred to monarchies as tyrannies.

You and Kerberos asserted it, but never wanted to justify your claim with regards to §3. You just keep insisting that I must be misunderstanding it.

Two Danes assure you that you are wrong about Denmark, and you still don't admit that you are wrong? Amazing.

Tell me something, have you ever travelled?

I'm not debating the UN here; I'm debating YOU. And YOU, NOT the UN, said that these rights exist "merely on an international scale.

And I proved it by referring you to the UN Human Rights document. Which you merely brush aside.

For the fiftieth time, it doesn't matter, so long as the rights are considered to exist outside any human authority. No government can grant them or take them away. And neither can any international authority. We have these rights because we have the ability to make decisions, act upon them, and be responsible for their consequences.

If the rights exist outside any human authority, who gave them to us? How did they come into existence?

 

[Roadtoad]

Uh, Claus, I would have to disagree with you on one point, though this might be a bit of a stretch within this thread, and it might be worth it to discuss this in another thread altogether:

While Constitutionally the Danish King may not possess power, (he cannot veto a law or really even propose one within the Danish Parliament), most monarchs within constitutional monarchies tend to hold tremendous political power, and as such, hold a great deal of political and social influence, if for no other reason, simply because they hold the position of "first citizen among their peers," and only lose such influence if they happen to be blithering imbeciles drooling down the front of their robes.

As this relates to this discussion, (and, oddly enough, towards Gun Control and such), from what I gathered from the few times I was in Denmark and from what I've read over the years, your king happens to be one of the most self-controlled individuals I've read about among European Monarchies. This would tend to indicate that Danes hold in high esteem self-control. (I could have this backwards, but, as you're actually there, I'll wait for you answer this one.) Quite frankly, your royals tend to be among the most boring individuals you hear about: They aren't in the news with their latest divorce, they aren't trashing hotel rooms, and they aren't out getting wasted in public.

Now, maybe it's me, but I would suspect if Denmark's prime minister were to sign into law a bill that legalized any and all forms of private gun ownership, two things would not happen:

(1.) Gun ownership would not increase significantly.

(2.) Gun violence would also not increase significantly.

One piece of evidence I would point to is that from what I've read, (and no, I don't have the figures with me, so I'll probably need to do some more digging), even with legalized prostitution in your country, you don't see an increase in the crime rates concerning rape and other forms of sexual violence. My fear is that if we were to legalize it here in the States, we'd have just that.

In Denmark, I never saw kids running around loose late at night. I see it all the time here in California. In fact, I keep my speed around 5-10 MPH when driving around in my neighborhood late at night, simply because of the number of kids running around here, and quite frankly, the parents couldn't care less. (I'm not real popular as a parent around here. I insist on knowing where my kids are, and what they're doing, and who they're doing it with. I'm one Bad Daddy.)

When I lived in Germany as a U.S. Military dependent, I would go with other American friends to places like Sachsenhausen in Frankfurt, usually getting ripped with my friends. Oddly enough, I don't think I ever saw a German kid around there, even during the day.

Would this indicate something? To me, this suggests that Europeans value self-control over all else. It's something I tended to see among the European nobility I would occasionally read about and on one or two occasions, met face to face. These people wield a tremendous amount of social and political power that is not codified within any document, but it's there nonetheless.

If I had to guess, most people in Europe would regard their appearance in the National Enquirer as a tremendous embarassment, rather than a badge of honor. Something to think about when it comes to a discussion regarding firearms, where self-control is REQUIRED.

 

[LucyR]

One piece of evidence I would point to is that from what I've read, (and no, I don't have the figures with me, so I'll probably need to do some more digging), even with legalized prostitution in your country, you don't see an increase in the crime rates concerning rape and other forms of sexual violence.

Not to go off on a tangent but why on earth would you expect the rates of sex crimes to increase with legalized prostitution? In Denmark or anywhere.

 

[Roadtoad]

Not to go off on a tangent but why on earth would you expect the rates of sex crimes to increase with legalized prostitution? In Denmark or anywhere.

Why would anyone expect gun violence rates to increase with legalized guns?

The question is not one of legalization, but of self-control.

 

[LucyR]

Why would anyone expect gun violence rates to increase with legalized guns?

The question is not one of legalization, but of self-control.

Hold on. That doesn't help. I admit my question doesn't have much to do with the thread topic, but what you said concerning prostitution, or what I thought you said, interests me. Again why should legalized prostitution result in an increase in sex crimes? What's the mechanism?

 

[Roadtoad]

Hold on. That doesn't help. I admit my question doesn't have much to do with the thread topic, but what you said concerning prostitution, or what I thought you said, interests me. Again why should legalized prostitution result in an increase in sex crimes? What's the mechanism?

To my knowledge, there isn't one.

 

[LucyR]

So I misunderstood you?

 

[Roadtoad]

So I misunderstood you?

I believe so, but I'd be interested in hearing your views on this before saying, "Yes, you misunderstood me." It could be I am operating on a false assumption.

 

[LucyR]

I believe so, but I'd be interested in hearing your views on this before saying, "Yes, you misunderstood me." It could be I am operating on a false assumption.

Ok. My interpretation of what you wrote was that legalization of prostitution might well be expected to be followed by an increase in sex crimes. In Denmark this did not happen because of the inherent "self-control" of the average Dane (wonder what CFLarsen thinks about that in particular?).

This does not make sense to me because I don't see the sex-crime link that you apparently think is quite likely.

 

[Roadtoad]

Ok. My interpretation of what you wrote was that legalization of prostitution might well be expected to be followed by an increase in sex crimes. In Denmark this did not happen because of the inherent "self-control" of the average Dane (wonder what CFLarsen thinks about that in particular?).

This does not make sense to me because I don't see the sex-crime link that you apparently think is quite likely.

Got it.

What I was trying to say was that in my experience, most Europeans, (not just Danes in particular), tend to place a higher value on such things as self-control than do most Americans. As such, you don't have people running amok when legalization (or stigmatization in some cases) takes hold.

Let's take drinking as one example. When my grandmother was a young woman in the 1920's, she explained, when Prohibition was in full swing, many people drank simply because it was the "in" thing to do. Booze was bad, and we want to be bad, so we drink, and sometimes to excess. (I remember well reading that the late and lamented ocean liner, the RMS Mauretania ended her life hauling Americans around the Carribean on what were called "Booze Cruises.")

Naturally, Prohibition couldn't be enforced. The whole business was a stupid idea to begin with. Eventually, it was repealed.

Now, of course, booze is legal, so we'd see a decrease in alcohol related problems. Right?

I forget the exact figure, but in actuality, Drunk Driving deaths have been somewhere in the neighborhood of 45,000 per year in the United States. Compare that with Europe and other parts of the world, where being drunk is considered a serious faux pas, and I think, Lucy, you can see where I'm going with this.

Consider another example: Rates of incarceration. We have nearly one tenth of our population behind bars, where I think it's far less for the rest of the world. Much of this is a refusal to accept individual responsibility for our own actions.

It's my belief that the ideal of being self-controlled has never really caught on in this nation, because it interferes with what we perceive as our "Liberty," (actually, license), whereas it's virtually required in far more densely populated regions of the world simply in order to maintain basic civil order.

(Sorry I'm late getting back to you on this. Priorities. My son called. My kids have first call on my time.)

 

[LucyR]

Thank you, Roadtoad. I appreciated your post but it was not exactly what I wanted.

Even in the case of the US where, according to you "self-control" is low, I don't see why legalization etc. etc. It doesn't matter though.

 

[Roadtoad]

Thank you, Roadtoad. I appreciated your post but it was not exactly what I wanted.

Even in the case of the US where, according to you "self-control" is low, I don't see why legalization etc. etc. It doesn't matter though.

Well, I disagree. I does matter. I'm trying to get a better handle on what you're trying to say. Maybe I had a little too much last night, and I'm not connecting. My suspicion is we're practically on the same page, just not the same paragraph.

It should NOT matter one way or another. My contention is that we've confusion in the U.S. between license and liberty. Can we start from there?

 

[LucyR]

Well, I disagree. I does matter. I'm trying to get a better handle on what you're trying to say. Maybe I had a little too much last night, and I'm not connecting. My suspicion is we're practically on the same page, just not the same paragraph.

It should NOT matter one way or another. My contention is that we've confusion in the U.S. between license and liberty. Can we start from there?

No. Your contention may be quite reasonable, insightful and important....but it has nothing specifically to do with my little question.

The "etc etc" in the last post was so that I would not have to repeat my question again. But here it is:

Why should legalization of prostitution be followed by an increase in sex crimes? Regardless of self-control or lack thereof?

When I wrote "it doesn't matter", I was referring only to the fact that you did not seem to have any desire to discuss this question any further.

 

[Roadtoad]

No. Your contention may be quite reasonable, insightful and important....but it has nothing specifically to do with my little question.

The "etc etc" in the last post was so that I would not have to repeat my question again. But here it is:

Why should legalization of prostitution be followed by an increase in sex crimes? Regardless of self-control or lack thereof?

When I wrote "it doesn't matter", I was referring only to the fact that you did not seem to have any desire to discuss this question any further.

And my answer is that it should not. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, when we in this country legalize something, we're perceived as giving tacit permission to go beyond what has been permitted. It's amost as if we're saying, "Okay, you can now legally hire a hooker. Now you can beat 'em up, too." The reality is that we haven't given permission for that, but it's as if people believe we now must press the limits and see if we can go further afield.

(Yes, I do want to answer the question. Apparently, the error is in my perception. My apologies.)

 

[LucyR]

Unfortunately, for whatever reason, when we in this country legalize something, we're perceived as giving tacit permission to go beyond what has been permitted. It's amost as if we're saying, "Okay, you can now legally hire a hooker. Now you can beat 'em up, too." The reality is that we haven't given permission for that, but it's as if people believe we now must press the limits and see if we can go further afield.

I see what you're saying. They get beaten up already of course. I would imagine that legalization would improve things. It would seem that you think Americans are more sadistic than the average. Don't believe that. Think of Germans for example.

 

[crimresearch]

I don't know if one poor thread can bear the weight of all the social issues being piled on top of gun control, but if you really want to drag prostitution, etc. into the mix, I doubt if you will find any neat answers.

Consider that the Czech Republic prides itself on its progressive attitude toward 'victimless' crimes such as prostitution, and as the witness.org videos show, they have experienced an increase in organized criminal kidnappings of women as sexual slaves to meet the demand for prostitutes.

And Iceland, which is a model of enlightened thinking in so many areas, started having a teen and even pre-teen alcoholism epidemic decades ago.

South Africa is rampant with gun crime, and so on, and so on.

There might be something to the underlying premise that increased individual rights correlates to increased risk-taking or even anti-social behavior, but there is less evidence that restricting such rights will directly increase social control.