Crime Thread

gopher · PostApr 12, 2009#2512009-04-12T18:00+00:00

So-called "gun-control" laws don't fix anything.

Since instituting "gun-control" laws in Australia look what has happened:

http://www.newswithviews.com/Turtel/joel39.htm

As usual criminals won't follow the laws... because they're CRIMINALS! Shocker!!

Take a look at California and try to get a Concealed Carry Permit there...

It is next to impossible for LAW-ABIDING citizens to get a CCW permit. Meanwhile, criminals who don't follow the laws carry them illegally.

Here's the law:

http://www.oakgov.com/sheriff/assets/cc ... cation.pdf

Oh and those four cops who were shot in California? The suspect was a parolee who served 6 years for assault with a firearm. You really think HE followed the law?

By the way, it is illegal to own a firearm if you're a convicted felon.

"Safe housing" and a gun-free neighborhood would be nice if everyone followed the law, but ahem, criminals don't because they're CRIMINALS.

Take a look at Germany that has one of the strictest gun control laws in the world:

http://www.kxmb.com/getArticle.asp?ArticleId=343524

Instead of trying to take guns away from law abiding citizens, maybe we should start enforcing the laws already on the books and put the criminals behind bars a little bit longer. Criminals will always have access to guns, knives, or other "weapons", but taking them from law abiding citizens never has and never will solve anything and only make it worse.

That being said...

This should strike fear in the heart of anyone that would see it...

http://secretsocietynyc.files.wordpress ... =540&h=223

Alex Ihnen · PostApr 12, 2009#2522009-04-12T18:19+00:00

You're good at posting links to anecdotes, but the fact is that every place you mention has a much lower gun homicide rate than the United States.

PostApr 12, 2009#2532009-04-12T18:19+00:00

Gary Kreie wrote:I'm wondering if Paul McKee is planning to combine his properties with other willing neighbors to create some kind of gun-free neighborhood housing enterprise in North St. Louis. Safe housing and shopping within the perimeter would increase property value.

I've been wondering whether to take you seriously or not. This has answered my question. Thanks.

gary kreie · PostApr 14, 2009#2542009-04-14T17:51+00:00

gopher wrote:So-called "gun-control" laws don't fix anything.

You site a bunch of stories from news organizations I've never heard of. Do you have something from a credible objective news organization?

I could offset your links with one like this:

http://www.iansa.org/regions/asiapacifi ... _lives.htm

which says Australia gun laws are working. And the Australia press made fun of the NRA report on the increase in mass-murder in Australia after gun laws were beefed up because the NRA included mass murders caused by wild fires set intentionally. -- A classic Rush Limbaugh-style half truth to hide the whole truth. I don't think the gun laws caused that.

Here is a link to something I consider credible. Notice the US is not the worst country in the world for gun deaths. South Africa is. We're just the worst rich country.

From the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/americas/6562529.stm

migueltejada · PostApr 15, 2009#2552009-04-15T07:35+00:00

Gopher -

As someone who lives in Australia, let me elighten you on the situation here:

You can buy guns, it's just very, very hard. People still get shot, but it's rare. Criminals do rob people, but it's by knife point more often than gun point. People still get mugged, beat, raped etc. Gun laws don't change people's behavior.

Here's what it changed - the chance of accidental death.

In the CBD, the number of bashings has gone up big time due to the huge increase in bars and heavy drinking (a situation STL should take caution before trying the same). BUT, despite this, few people die. Why? No guns. Oh sure, people get stabbed, but a stab wound is far less likely to kill than a gun wound. A friend of mine gone stabbed recently, just got jumped by thugs. He fought back. Now, imagine if they had a gun. Chances are he'd be dead. Fact is, without guns, you don't have random shootouts in a club. There's no such thing as innocent bystanders getting stabbed.

I've heard the argument that armed people stop crime before it happens. That's a fallacy. You can assume everyone is carrying a knife. It's not going to stop someone if they're really determined.

And as far as that story goes, if Australia and England have the first and second highest crime rates in the world, then I'm the bloody queen of England. According to the UN Survey on Crime Trends (http://www.geocities.com/dtmcbride/refe ... world.html) (this guy ranked the countries), Australia is 40th in what i think are incarcerations per 100,000.

gopher · PostApr 15, 2009#2562009-04-15T14:06+00:00

Always glad to hear from an Aussie

I'm not a "gun-nut" but what I have a real problem with is if I follow the laws and rules, why is someone trying to impose their opinion on me? Criminals are not going to "line up" and give back their guns. In fact, 100% of all crimes are committed by criminals. Why should I, a responsible gun owner, give up my rights to satiate the will of a few incidental shootings by nut jobs?

Same thing for the "smoke-free" ban and government bailouts...

I say leave me alone and I'll leave you alone. I haven't done anything to anyone yet people think they need to "protect" me from my own choices. Whether that be investment choices by big banks, smoking, fast food, or guns. All of which are extremely dangerous in their own right.

PostApr 15, 2009#2572009-04-15T14:45+00:00

<soapbox>

I should also mention that we tend to get desensitized to the things that really do harm... such as drunk driving. More people's lives have been turned upside down from drunks getting behind the wheel than gun shootings, yet we keep letting these people get behind the wheel. Australia has some serious zero-tolerance on this, but we here in America really don't.

Things have really gotten out of whack...

e.g. Just today, we're attempting to increase enforcement to prevent more tragedies, but we have to have a judge on call. Seriously. The cops can't enforce the laws on the books without having a court order.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/s ... enDocument

IMHO what we really should do is enforce the laws already on our books to a greater extent than impose new restrictions and regulations that will be "enforced" willy-nilly, or only followed by law-abiding citizens.

I don't know who to blame, I really don't care. I just know that I and my son will be raised with respect for the law and others. That's all I can do, and if more people followed the philosophy of the "golden rule" then the world would be a better place.

What I'm really getting at is leave me alone and I'll leave you alone.

</soapbox>

throatybeard · PostApr 15, 2009#2582009-04-15T15:01+00:00

Part of the reason this country has so much drunk driving is that we have so much driving; the built environment is almost entirely geared towards automobiles and not humans.

No one gets killed when my drunk ass hops the 1 bus home from Euclid or stumbles home from Talayna's.

Alex Ihnen · PostApr 15, 2009#2592009-04-15T15:15+00:00

moorlander · PostApr 15, 2009#2602009-04-15T15:28+00:00

I can see it now "walking drunk saves lives"

MattnSTL · PostApr 15, 2009#2612009-04-15T15:44+00:00

^Sometimes I think I would be better off driving drunk than walking drunk.

Alex Ihnen · PostApr 15, 2009#2622009-04-15T15:48+00:00

^ sometimes you're wrong.

MattnSTL · PostApr 15, 2009#2632009-04-15T15:51+00:00

^More than sometimes.

I meant it as a joke. Can't walk straight but am OK while sitting. Oh, never mind.

gary kreie · PostApr 15, 2009#2642009-04-15T17:38+00:00

gopher wrote:Always glad to hear from an Aussie

I'm not a "gun-nut" but what I have a real problem with is if I follow the laws and rules, why is someone trying to impose their opinion on me? Criminals are not going to "line up" and give back their guns. In fact, 100% of all crimes are committed by criminals. Why should I, a responsible gun owner, give up my rights to satiate the will of a few incidental shootings by nut jobs?

I think everyone agrees with you -- to a point. But I think it is a matter of degree. I assume you will agree that not everyone should be allowed to have certain weapons, no matter how law-abiding they are now and have been in the past. Such as small nuclear warheads. So once you concur, it just comes down to -- where do we draw the line. Like migueltejada implied, it is a lot easier for a single individual to kill 35 people quickly with guns than with knives. We already have laws that prevent individuals from owning hand grenades, sawed-off shotguns, and nerve gas. Should we consider re-writing those laws in different terms? Such as -- individuals may not own weaponry to kill, say, 20 people per minute and up? Any weapons without limiters to that level or lower would be banned.

throatybeard · PostApr 15, 2009#2652009-04-15T18:29+00:00

Moorlander wrote:I can see it now "walking drunk saves lives"

I also walk hard.

innov8ion · PostApr 15, 2009#2662009-04-15T18:36+00:00

publiceye wrote:
There are an amazing number of people with mental issues.

According to the NIH:

Mental disorders are common in the United States and internationally. An estimated 26.2 percent of Americans ages 18 and older — about one in four adults — suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in a given year.

Applied (haphazardly) to the population of registered users of this forum, that would mean 634 posters suffering from a mental disorder a year. That would explain much.

Kind of an aside, but interesting nonetheless. Research that shows a potential conflict of interest via financial ties between, "DSM-IV Panel Members and the Pharmaceutical Industry." Ref: http://tinyurl.com/cah5re

Conclusions: Our inquiry into the relationships between DSM panel members and the pharmaceutical industry demonstrates that there are strong financial ties between the industry and those who are responsible for developing and modifying the diagnostic criteria for mental illness. The connections are especially strong in those diagnostic areas where drugs are the first line of treatment for mental disorders. Full disclosure by DSM panel members of their financial relationships with for-profit entities that manufacture drugs used in the treatment of mental illness is recommended.

Alex Ihnen · PostApr 15, 2009#2672009-04-15T18:41+00:00

To some extent we're seeing an epidemic of diagnosis.

gopher · PostApr 15, 2009#2682009-04-15T21:22+00:00

Grover wrote:To some extent we're seeing an epidemic of diagnosis.

No kidding there. With the new DSMIV it opened up a broad range of autism diagnoses. Most of which would have been "labeled" normal a few years ago. Now there are all sorts of cottage industries sprouting up. Most not licensed and illegal as there is no public protection what so ever.

(Read the Einstein Syndrome by Thomas Sowell it's enlightening).

Unlicensed therapists are even reimbursed by the State of Missouri (to the tune of $60.00 / hour), believe me, it's not good. Not good at all. Now they're trying to pass legislation that would require insurance companies to actually pay for this now...

It's supposed to be criminal (according to the RsMO), but try getting it enforced, it's next to impossible as it has to go through a special "Administrative Hearing Commission" under the Insurance Regulations for the state.

migueltejada · PostApr 16, 2009#2692009-04-16T00:06+00:00

gopher wrote:<soapbox>

I should also mention that we tend to get desensitized to the things that really do harm... such as drunk driving. More people's lives have been turned upside down from drunks getting behind the wheel than gun shootings, yet we keep letting these people get behind the wheel. Australia has some serious zero-tolerance on this, but we here in America really don't.

</soapbox>

Now you've walked right into my wheelhouse.

In Victoria (my state), we have things called Random Breath Tests (and our legal limit is .05, not .08 or .10). Cops will have stations set up with "Booze Buses" on the side of a road, around a bend where you can't see them until you pull up, and they force you to take a breath test. If the test is positive, they make you get out of the car and into the booze bus where they have blood testing equipment to confirm if you're over the legal limit. They also do this for drugs as well (a drugs bus, usually out on a friday/sat night).

In the USA, this would be considered a violation of our 4th amendment rights, as you've exhibited no behavior that would indicate you were otherwise intoxicated behind the wheel. But in Australia, where they have no codified rights, they can get away with it.

Alex Ihnen · PostApr 16, 2009#2702009-04-16T01:42+00:00

migueltejada wrote:But in Australia, where they have no codified rights, they can get away with it.

Clearly you meant, "they can actually enforce laws."

framer · PostApr 16, 2009#2712009-04-16T05:54+00:00

migueltejada wrote:In Victoria (my state), we have things called Random Breath Tests (and our legal limit is .05, not .08 or .10). Cops will have stations set up with "Booze Buses" on the side of a road, around a bend where you can't see them until you pull up, and they force you to take a breath test. If the test is positive, they make you get out of the car and into the booze bus where they have blood testing equipment to confirm if you're over the legal limit. They also do this for drugs as well (a drugs bus, usually out on a friday/sat night).

In the USA, this would be considered a violation of our 4th amendment rights, as you've exhibited no behavior that would indicate you were otherwise intoxicated behind the wheel. But in Australia, where they have no codified rights, they can get away with it.

Actually, they're planning to do pretty much the same thing in St. Charles tommorrow night:

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/s ... enDocument

migueltejada · PostApr 16, 2009#2722009-04-16T08:51+00:00

Grover wrote:
migueltejada wrote:But in Australia, where they have no codified rights, they can get away with it.

Clearly you meant, "they can actually enforce laws."

No, I meant what I said. Randomly pulling people over to breath test them without cause is no different than pulling people over to randomly search vehicles for drugs or weapons. Australia has no codified rights, and as such the police can engage in these violations of personal rights. If the cops want to breath test people exiting a bar, that's one thing. Pulling them over randomly is something totally different.

juiceinkirkwood · PostApr 17, 2009#2732009-04-17T16:57+00:00

migueltejada wrote:In the USA, this would be considered a violation of our 4th amendment rights, as you've exhibited no behavior that would indicate you were otherwise intoxicated behind the wheel. But in Australia, where they have no codified rights, they can get away with it.

So, you meant that as a bad thing, right? The USA is a nation of litigous DBs. The police have to be afraid to do their job any more.

gary kreie · PostApr 19, 2009#2742009-04-19T21:02+00:00

Gary Kreie wrote:
gopher wrote:Always glad to hear from an Aussie

I'm not a "gun-nut" but what I have a real problem with is if I follow the laws and rules, why is someone trying to impose their opinion on me? Criminals are not going to "line up" and give back their guns. In fact, 100% of all crimes are committed by criminals. Why should I, a responsible gun owner, give up my rights to satiate the will of a few incidental shootings by nut jobs?

I think everyone agrees with you -- to a point. But I think it is a matter of degree. I assume you will agree that not everyone should be allowed to have certain weapons, no matter how law-abiding they are now and have been in the past. Such as small nuclear warheads. So once you concur, it just comes down to -- where do we draw the line. Like migueltejada implied, it is a lot easier for a single individual to kill 35 people quickly with guns than with knives. We already have laws that prevent individuals from owning hand grenades, sawed-off shotguns, and nerve gas. Should we consider re-writing those laws in different terms? Such as -- individuals may not own weaponry to kill, say, 20 people per minute and up? Any weapons without limiters to that level or lower would be banned.

The legislature just passed the law to allow concealed guns on college campuses and lowered the carry age to 21 from 23.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/s ... enDocument

I was disappointed to see the Rick Stream of Kirkwood voted for this bill. It was just over a year ago that the Kirkwood shooting occurred. I guess the idea is that with concealed weapons, college students can prevent mass killings by return fire. Anyone who saw 20-20 a couple of weeks ago knows that the research shows that -- unless you are a law enforcement official who trains at least monthly at firing in response -- you don't stand a chance even with a gun.

Wasn't it just a couple of years ago that the people of Missouri voted to not allow concealed weapons? We hear a lot about gun rights, but not much about our democracy rights. Gun powder found its evolutionary survival niche by teaming with a protective host in the Missouri legislature. Its kind of like how drugs in Mexico control local politics there.

jcity · PostApr 19, 2009#2752009-04-19T23:35+00:00

So, you meant that as a bad thing, right? The USA is a nation of litigous DBs. The police have to be afraid to do their job any more.

yes, this IS a bad thing. A powerful police state is NOT what I want in the USA. the idea of randomly drug testing is absolutely ridiculous. drinking and driving clearly affects other peoples lives, but wow. you'd advocate that? it's like, please take away my freedoms Big Gov...

as for concealed carry of students on campus.. that certainly is new territory. not sure how i feel about it.

Crime Thread

Choose Display Mode