bbauska wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

freeman3 wrote:So if we passed a law making armed robbery punishable by a fine would there be more or fewer armed robberies? Laws do prevent crime.

That's not the law defining the crime, but the punishment.

And, should you be arguing for the deterrent effect of punishment?

Laws do not prevent crime--it merely defines the offense and prescribes the penalty. If laws prevented crime, we would have little crime.

Punishment can affect recidivism.

And the threat of punishment can be a deterrent.

Would you say that the increase of homicides in Chicago is affected by the deterrent of a punishment threat?

bbauska wrote:Would you say that the increase of homicides in Chicago is affected by the deterrent of a punishment threat?

No, because I don't grep your question.

There is a threat of punishment for murder. However, the homicide rate has increased dramatically.

I do not think the threat of punishment is much of a deterrent.

Definition of law: "A binding custom or practice or custom of a community. A rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority." Merriam-Webster.

So, law does not just include the definition of the offense but specifies that adherence is compelled.

I think DF's original point was in essence that criminals are going to get guns in spite of laws against it--saying that laws don't prevent crime was an overstatement, which was why we are now engaged in a philosophical analysis of what a law is.

Generally speaking, a rational criminal would assess the benefit from a crime with his chances of getting caught and the amount of punishment received. The problem with illegal gun possession is that since legal guns are easy to obtain, criminals can get them easily too. And their chances of getting caught with them are small. When the chances of getting caught are high (such as when New York instituted their effective--albeit unconstitutional--stop and frisk policies), then unlawful gun possession goes down. The drive to carry guns in public will make it even easier for criminals to carry guns. When guns are everywhere, there is even less reason for police to crack down on them. They just need to be ready to shoot...

bbauska wrote:There is a threat of punishment for murder. However, the homicide rate has increased dramatically.

I do not think the threat of punishment is much of a deterrent.

I think it varies. Murder is not the only crime, and there is more to it than the mere existence of a punishment, it is the perception of threat, and the balance of that with the motive for a crime.

Of course, the overall murder rate in the USA is down.

http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/Deterrence%20Briefing%20.pdf

Interesting article I am reading...

freeman3 wrote:Generally speaking, a rational criminal would assess the benefit from a crime with his chances of getting caught and the amount of punishment received.

Generally speaking, there aren't so many rational criminals. The number who make such calculations, in my estimation, is a sliver of the overall crime picture.

The problem with illegal gun possession is that since legal guns are easy to obtain, criminals can get them easily too.

Legal guns are not that easy to obtain. Illegal guns, those purchased outside of "normal" processes, are much easier to get.

And their chances of getting caught with them are small. When the chances of getting caught are high (such as when New York instituted their effective--albeit unconstitutional--stop and frisk policies), then unlawful gun possession goes down.

Let's talk about "overstatements." There simply is no way to engineer a "high chance" of getting caught with an illegal weapon.

The drive to carry guns in public will make it even easier for criminals to carry guns. When guns are everywhere, there is even less reason for police to crack down on them. They just need to be ready to shoot...

Wrong.

Criminals carry guns whenever they want. The definition of a criminal is someone who does not obey laws. Whether or not laws on carrying guns are relaxed, criminals will carry them. Only the law-abiding citizens accept restrictions like these.

Furthermore, police officers have to approach every person as if they are armed. Why? Because there is no illuminated sign above them indicating armed/not armed or crook/not crook. As soon as they begin approaching everyone as if they are non-threats, they get hurt and/or killed.

Apparently there are not any criminals in Great Britain...

freeman3 wrote:Apparently there are not any criminals in Great Britain...

Well, we do have some armed criminals, but not many. I think DF presents a false dichotomy between "criminals" and "law abiders" - while some people are defined that way, a great many people who commit crimes don't do so habitually or as an end in itself.

danivon wrote:

freeman3 wrote:Apparently there are not any criminals in Great Britain...

Well, we do have some armed criminals, but not many. I think DF presents a false dichotomy between "criminals" and "law abiders" - while some people are defined that way, a great many people who commit crimes don't do so habitually or as an end in itself.

I apologize for not writing a thesis.

Yes, there are people who commit crimes of opportunity who are not necessarily career criminals. However, they are probably tangential to our gun control conversation.

You may now resume telling me the glories of gun control.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

freeman3 wrote:Apparently there are not any criminals in Great Britain...

Well, we do have some armed criminals, but not many. I think DF presents a false dichotomy between "criminals" and "law abiders" - while some people are defined that way, a great many people who commit crimes don't do so habitually or as an end in itself.

I apologize for not writing a thesis.

Yes, there are people who commit crimes of opportunity who are not necessarily career criminals. However, they are probably tangential to our gun control conversation.

I am not sure they are.

You may now resume telling me the glories of gun control.

No need. Every time I see a mass killing that could have been prevented with better controls, I understand the advantages.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Yes, there are people who commit crimes of opportunity who are not necessarily career criminals. However, they are probably tangential to our gun control conversation.

I am not sure they are.

Feel free to prove it.

You may now resume telling me the glories of gun control.

No need. Every time I see a mass killing that could have been prevented with better controls, I understand the advantages.

Name one.

I'll start. The school shooting in Newtown. Connecticut's gun laws are about as "good" as you could hope for. However, bad parenting can't be stopped. The mom was a fool and her insane son was able to take advantage of her foolishness. Next?

Number of arrested Americans is about 77 million. http://www.wsj.com/articles/as-arrest-r ... 1408415402

Interesting to note that there are higher crime rates in England for robbery, car theft and robbery...
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/a ... e-plunging

I found this info with regard to breakdown of criminal history of violent felons (relevant to determining breakdown of criminals vs those who commit crimes)
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vfluc.txt

freeman3 wrote:Number of arrested Americans is about 77 million. http://www.wsj.com/articles/as-arrest-r ... 1408415402

I don't think this is accurate. It stretches over 20 years. I think it is likely people die, etc. I find it hard to believe that one out of three American adults has an arrest record.