Violent Crimes and Solutions for

There is a need to reduce violent crimes in the world. Now I know not all countries are the same and so what might work for some wont for others.

The crimes I speak of are

(1) Murder (not accidents but intentional)
(2) Rape (violent abussive not others right now)
(3) Mental and Physical attacks on others (Continual attacks that has been know to drive the victim to commit a crime in defense)

SO with this in mind please address the issue, provide what you think is the best coarse of action in each event and supporting facts. Links would be helpful and maybe short quotes. Lets not hate each other in here, lets see if some simple nobodies can do better than the people who get paid to figure this shit out can. I am betting on us. We have gun toters, gun haters, ect in here so maybe some clashing will go on but maybe the two need to work together and a real set of solutions will come along.

 

I salute you Dirk. You did exactly the right thing. I think most of the excalation in those sort of crimes in the last decade, is because most of us have a tendency to turn our backs and hope someone else will take care of the problem. Behavior like this is totally unacceptable. But I am afraid the reality shows of today have just instilled a mentality that it's all part of boys being boys. It's time as a society to step up and say your behavior stinks and will not be accepted.

 

Our fore fathers that wrote our Constitution and Declaration of Indepence had experienced a lot and I've never seen any other government document that gives the people ruled more control or responsibility that those two documents. But lately I've heard more and more how they are outdated and need to be rewritten. I have to disagree. I think they covered just about every contingency if the populace would step up to the plate and demand they be heard. They were written when individuals accept individual responsibility. I think Individual Responsibility....is what we have actually lost. We think we can buy insurance to protect us...but insurance companies are only interested in their bottomline.

We are all born alone and die alone. Insurance companies can't provide us with what we lose when we give up personal responsibility. Maybe they can pay the outrageous costs now adays for a funeral, but they can't protect your families or your home. They are selling you a product that has in most cases not produced. Just ask the victims of Katrina. Yet we continue to legislate in order to increase their profits, not protect the consumers that buy their commodity.

 

I also believe it's a matter of individual responsibility and power. Each of us has the power to help make our neighborhoods safer by taking action as Dirk did, and "making it our business" to fight injustice. I don't mean through violence, but merely making your presence known, perhaps showing you have a cell phone and can contact the police.

Maybe if we spent more time getting to know each other in our local communities, we would have a stronger bond and there would be more awareness of and less tolerance for criminal behavior. Spend more time out your neighborhood and not locked indoors in front of the television, take a personal interest in your community, and you're already doing the work right there.

Maybe we need to have more pride in our local communities. I think that means supporting local and small businesses over corporate conglomerates, offering some of our free time to beautify our surroundings, and otherwise taking action to preserve the safety and health of our neighborhoods.

We can work hand in hand with the government towards making this country a safer place. There is a need for law reform in this country regarding drug use (drug addicts require therapy, not prison) and more attention and emphasis paid to the importance of preserving our civil liberties (too many are far too willing to just hand them over in return for a promise of safety). The sooner those matters are sorted out, the sooner we might see a more efficient law enforcement agency that we can be proud to support.

What do you guys think? There are clearly a lot of problems with law enforcement in this country, and with crime, but the best solutions to these problems don't concern the specific punishments to crimes which are, in my opinion, overly cruel and barbaric as is.

 

And I used to think this guy was a dumb ass, lol I think he has the right track here. I think if people would go back to getting to know the people around them, work together, assist each other, watch out for each other, have BBQ's and block parties ect that we will form a better bond. A strong community will also keep thier police in check. When an entire community can vote out their goverment officials becuase they are united even at the community level this can create change in upper levels.

So far this seems to be the correct direction perhaps we should build upon it???

 

Pitt

This story might be true or not but the point you use it to highlight you have made before (I think last time it was driving home a battered woman to a shelter).

You want to tell people to do the right thing.

But as I’ve pointed out to you before that message has been repeated again and again for well over 2000 years.

For example take the parable of the ‘good Samaritan’ which is incredibly like your own stories with some people turning away until the hero comes along and helps the troubled/battered person to safety.

I think it worthy to keep reminding people to help but given its effectiveness so far to base your plan for a better society on it is akin to doing nothing.

For example for years women had to put up with abusive husbands because the woman was the man’s property remember there was no such thing as rape within a marriage.
(“The first U.S. marital rape laws weren't passed until the 1970s. It wasn't until July 1993 that marital rape became a crime in all 50 states – and over 30 of them have exceptions that allow for nonconsensual sex in particular circumstances” see "Contest and Consent: A Legal History of Marital Rape,").

The laws needed to change and the women had to be able to receive such assistance as welfare so that they were not depended on their husband. The reason why many women returned to abusive husbands was because they had no money to support themselves independently.

These moves have done a lot more to help abused women than patching them up until the next time.

To me doing the right thing would be to support such laws and welfare programmes but also find out why the abuse is going on in the first place.
To give an example it was discovered by an expert in domestic violence that in over 80 percent of abusers in domestic violence cases were exposed to domestic violence during their own childhood. And as a result of this these men had come to accept violence as a legitimate method of asserting control in relationships ‘Victimology and the Psychological Perspectives of Battered Women," Walker
In other words they saw threat and intimidation as legitimate means of control.
Now I’ll re-post a theory that might be of interest.

**

 

My theory is that there is a general attitude among many Americans that accepts threat of violence, intimidation and suppression as legitimate means of societal control and this mindset gets in the way of them actually working toward solutions to their social and political problems.

This is because that attitude colours the way they think about and view the world.

They can come to see the world as threatening, they can feel intimidated and fear that they are or could be the victim of suppression.

This attitude can lead to a near paranoidic outlook were everything and everyone is seen a potential threat that is just waiting to attack or repress them. This taints the way they see the government, how criminality can be dealt with, how they see their fellow citizens, differing social classes, differing ethnic groups, and even differing political philosophies or ideas.

Within the framework of such a worldview guns seem attractive as a means of ‘equalising’ the individual against what they perceive as threats, it makes them feel that they are also ‘powerful’ and intimidating and that they too, if needs be, can deal with, in other words suppress the threatening.

The problem is that such attitudes can build up an irrational barrier between reality and myth, between what they see as prudent and sensible and what actually is prudent and sensible.

For example many feel they need guns to ‘protect’ them from the government, but how realistic is that belief and what in essence does it mean?

If anyone looked at the history of the US they’d see clearly that gun ownership has never been a tried and tested method of escaping the actions of the government. From the suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion to Ruby Ridge and Waco, in fact the use of weapons against authority has been seen as justification by many or most Americans for tough action (repression as a means of problem solving).

But have the armed citizens of America been a bulwark against injustice or have they more often than not helped perpetrate it? If people actually thought about the classic cases of injustice in US history they would see a pattern. More often than not guns in the hands of ‘decent people’ have been used as a means of suppression. From the subjugation of the ‘savage Indians’, the repression of ‘bestial negroes’ to the defence against ‘insidious pinkos’ the use or threat of force has been obvious and the gun the symbol of that power.

But it doesn’t have to be a gun, this attitude is about having ‘equalizing’ power, the ability to threaten and this is why the argument runs that if there were no guns then there would be swords and knives and in that case they would want also to have swords and knives.

It seems to me that when threat, intimidation and suppression come to be seen as the most important (or only) means of dealing with domestic social problems and the outside world, the mindset becomes blind to alternatives.

So in crime (as in many other areas) ‘toughness’ in other words repressive measures are praised while calls for understanding of the social context that leads to criminality is dismissed as soft and ‘giving in’ to the criminals.

Guns are just part of that repressive approach.

I feel that it could be this attitude that marks US culture out, of course not all Americans have this viewpoint and not everyone that does has it at the same intensity of feeling but I believe enough do to make the viewpoint prevalent.

It is my contention that if this attitude didn’t exist, many social and political problems would be dealt with in a lot more rational and realistic manner and the feeling that weapon ownership was so necessary and desirable would not be so widespread in the US.


**

 

Oh Pitt once more with the fake ‘righteous indignation’ come on man its getting old.

Anyway calm down actually it was Yank that invited me over, I actually didn’t know this thread existed until he told me about it in the gun crazy thread.

The reason that your post got my attention was because we have been through this before and you seem not to have taken note of the weakness in you case that I pointed out to you on that occasion.

Don’t get me wrong I think that it is very worthy to help the people you see in trouble, you may or may not believe me but I’ve done it myself a few times (I just don’t crow about it)

But as I’ve pointed out as a policy to supposedly bring about a better society it has a major weakness.

On it’s own it hasn’t worked.

Unless you think you have more clout than Christ? -)

**

 

Taken down by poster as it distracted from intended goal of thread!

 

I agree, one person can change a life, then maybe the life they impacted shall go out and change another and so on. I try to do this whenever I can. I have done so on here in some ways but that is between me and them.

Go out and do something for others and hope that planted a seed of thought so that perhaps they will do the same and then the people they help will do the same and so on.

If you see an act of violence getting in there trying to help by simply saying you see what they are doing and will let others know would plant a thought at least, maybe others around will come forward then and do the same, soon a crowd will be there to assist the victim. See no guns or violence but atleast action was taken but a lazer dot on the chest followed by seeing a weapon with 17 rounds in it would do all that by itself, lol

 

just how many pro gun threads can there be before this bullshit gets called spam!?

 

Taken down by poster as it distracted from intended goal of thread.

 

I totally agree with Yank that people need to stop being wimps and start getting involved in helping. Most likely if trying to help would have been the thing the majority did commonly, there would not have been nearly so many deaths in the VA Tech thingie, or anywhere else for that matter.

Lets face it, our government shows us that violence is OK. Just watch what the great Bush and company do. Such wonderful role models. They cannot find any way to settle their disagreements except thru violence. Many other governments are the same. Alot of the world citizens are frustrated and afraid due to being overly controlled and kept poor, they see that the "authority figures" solve their troubles at the end of a gun or bomb. The police force is all about intimidation due to their common use of guns and other violent tactics. This is the accepted way. We are surrounded by condoned violence in our lives, not even speaking of violent video games and movies which I think are pretty tame compared to what our own governments do in real life, and probably would mean very little in a mentally healthy population.

People are not taught to CARE. They are taught to COMPETE and how to FIGHT for what they want from day one. Human nature is such that if you do something that someone percieves as "bad", that chances are the average response to it will also be "bad". And so, because of all this, it somehow makes reacting in violent fashion more "acceptable".

Also, added to the general problems of being a human, we all live too close to each other. Everyone needs some "space" to live as they wish, have their own things without someone else mucking about with them. People need quiet time and alone time and they need things that make them smile more. Any one who has raised any type of animals knows that if they get too crowded they start attacking each other. And animals don't have all that learned bullshit about action/reaction that humans do.

Human kind is simply on the wrong track, and it will take intelligent and compassionate humans to put us on the right one. And waiting around for someone else to do it isn't gonna help anything. And PISSING CONTESTS between egomaniacs who can't find anything better to do than trash up a perfectly good discussion on a perfectly reasonable subject with VOLUMES and pages of useless drivel do not help anything, but rather run alot of TRUELY intelligent people off who may actually have some constructive things to say. Most intelligent people have better things to do than get sucked into some childish shit throwing contest between people who are SUPPOSED to be adults... So, as far as I'm concerned, BALBUS (Blabus) and Dirk Pitt can just SHUT THE HELL UP AND STOP BEING IN THE WAY.

 

This is not a pro gun thread in fact if the solution to violence would be getting rid of my guns and I knew 100% for sure that another sole would not be harmed I would give up my entire collection a self sacrafice so that others would not suffer.

This thread seeks a solution to violent crimes, thus far there have been tid bits of information leading to the possible solution but more sadly just alot more arguments for guns and no guns. That is another thread.

If you choose to supply information and solutions great. If you wish to make this a progun antigun thread then go back to guncrazy or whatever.

Guns may be part of the solution, they may be only part of the solution for a small persiod of time until things have passed a point of need/want ect. Thus far it has not been talked about too much. Obviously we need to teach something to our youth so they have something to work with but we dont want sheep either. There must be a balance some place in this mess. Invest time, its a serious problem that should recieve serous thought.

I have yet to post my ideas as Im still researching myself and pop in here to read your thoughts, to assist in directions I need to look into so that what I offer I hope is the least offensive to all sides yet still reaching a goal.

 

Sadly the animal instinct took over in this case. First reaction in most animals and humans is tuck and run. Its not really a cowardly thing as much as an instinct to avoid conflict. Now after a bit of time this instinct should have run its coarse and the defence mode should have taken over but I guess not being there I can not say what the chances were.

Lets rip the situation apart to understand faults.

(1) Something obviously had been disturbing this man. He had issues for sometime prior to this event, what exactly is not known but if ever a change is to be made it must be known what happend to him what series of events led him to this point.

(2) The FBI in thier background check failed to find his mental health records and also the guy did not answere honestly on his applciation for firearm as there is a clear line about mental health. Had this been dealt with atleast until he found an alternative form to get the guns or an alternative method of killing, things would have been different.

Also there should have been something inplace that contacted local law enforcement that when the background check shows a known mental health issue or criminal trying to purchase a gun they can come get them. If they lie on the application then it should be a felony as it is a federal document. Perhaps that could slow down some crimes???

(3) We might wish to know why the first 2 were killed seperately and also why the school did little to nothing when they did not fully know what was going on. I think I would rather go thru a lock down of some sort until things were sorted out than offer groups of targets.

It just seems there were multiple chances to stop this before it even started as well as likely chances to stop it early in its tragic start.

 

Im not sure as far as police the gun is what I would fear as much as the fact that what ever the police say or do is normally backed up by the brotherhood of the police and the courts thus you have no legal recoarse for thier actions unless lucky enough to have a 3rd party catch it on tape. Police need to start being held accountable for thier actions. If you commit a crime against an officer it is a greater punishment, if you hold a CDL you are punished greater becuase you are a professional, if you had military training and commit a violent crime you are treated harder becuase of your training but why is it when a trained professional police officer commits a crime it is treated like he is a model citizen. They act like its the first time and always say its "an isolated incedent" when in fact what is isolated is maybe the fact they got caught.

If you harm a police dog its the same as shooting a human but if the dog continues to attack you while on the ground its accepted becuase its just a dog. Seems rather an injustice.

Lastly as far as the education to compete and fight that is sorta true. The military (I know your gonna hate this) atleast trains people to work together to solve a task, that the weakest person is your strongest link thus you work as a team. Maybe if in all those competive events schools have instead of benching the bad players they used other players to assist to build all the players up. Instead of letting kids fall behind in math, english, history ect have the kids better in that subject pair up, work as a group and keep this going all the time?? Perhaps teaching that a unit is stronger than that of a single person and that working together in unitity (hmm I think I heard this before United/we stand divided we fall) will accomplish alot more??

 

Pitt

As I’ve pointed out before you should read the posts not just react without understanding or thinking.

I think people should help as I actually said in my post if you had bothered to read them -

“I think it worthy to keep reminding people to help but given its effectiveness so far to base your plan for a better society on it is akin to doing nothing.”

“Don’t get me wrong I think that it is very worthy to help the people you see in trouble, you may or may not believe me but I’ve done it myself a few times (I just don’t crow about it)”

But the point I’ve made on several occasions is while you say things like “finding out why people do things they do is nobel and essential” you don’t actually seem capable of explaining what you would do, when asked you only give mumbled and vague platitudes before dragging the discussion back to the guns and their necessity in tackling crime.

That is why I think you don’t actually give that much thought on how to make a better world only how to prop up the status quo or promote the ideas of threat and intimidation.

**

 

Yank

Seems our US history was founded on firearms, thus the reason the British left so soon. Like all countries violence forged thier paths. Europes empires left a bloody path in attempts to set thier lands lines. They still daily have blood shed over such issues and firearms are the method used.

As I’ve already pointed out this is not dealing with the problem it is just saying ‘other people do it’ .

**
As for possible more social programs ect had firearms not been around I would like to know how you could see how that could have been. Would the goverment that exploits its people be more willing to not exploit and assist its people if they knew there would be no resistance???

Again you don’t seem to have read what I’ve posted or understood their meaning, one of my contentions is that ‘the armed decent citizen’ has (and is) actually holding back the social changes needed to make the US a better society.

I say again go back and don’t just dismiss the ideas out of hand without even thinking about them read them over and mull over what they say.

**

Now Bulbus you pointed out an article to look up but again would not invest the time to show the location of the article, why make your readers need to hunt the article down?? I took the time for you: http://www.law.uchicago.edu/academics/maritalrape.html

LOL

Sorry had to laugh “invest the time to show the location” – so this mean you are going to actually back up what you said and show me were my theories have been refuted, rather than making assertions you never seem able to back up?

Or is it – ‘do what I say not what I do’?

I mean I did at least show were it came from I didn’t just make it up as you seem to.

**

 

Sometimes talking with some pro-gunners is like walking through a vat of rather dense jelly.

Yank

It seems you are another one that doesn’t bother to read post let alone try to understand what they say and of course you lie with complete ease when it suits you to do so.

This makes talking to you in any rational way rather problematic you don’t seem to want to be actually engaged in what’s been said and you’ll lie to discredit it if you can.

As I’ve said it very much sums up the character of a dogmatic zealot, I mean time and again you drag the issue back to ‘guns are needed’, ‘guns tackle crime’ in other words the doctrine of threat, intimidation and suppression.

**

First as I keep repeating I do not hold up the UK as some type of perfect state, very far from it I am and have been very vocal about the faults I see in the British system and many of their attitudes. But there character is slightly different than those of our American cousins.

If you had taken the time to read what I’ve said you would know this is not about violence per se, it is about a general attitude and viewpoint and to quote me - “of course not all Americans have this viewpoint and not everyone that does has it at the same intensity of feeling but I believe enough do to make the viewpoint prevalent”

Think about and try and understand what’s being said this time (if you can put aside your dogmatic outlook for a moment and think rationally) .

My theory is that there is a general attitude among many Americans that accepts threat of violence, intimidation and suppression as legitimate means of societal control and this mindset gets in the way of them actually working toward solutions to their social and political problems.

Now this attitude is not only confined to Americans but it seems more prominent in the US to the point that it permeates a lot of Americans views and how they see the world.

Look at the differences in British and American society, the UK doesn’t have the death penalty the US has one of the highest execution rates in the world. The prison population in England and Wales is the highest in Europe at 148 per 100,000 but that of the US is the highest in the world at 738 per 100,000. There are those in Britain that want more personal gun ownership but it is only a vocal minority in the US it is a powerful lobbying group and to some it is akin to religious dogma that it is good and healthy and a way of tackling crime.
As to attitude toward state welfare and social justice there seems to be a lot more support for it and a belief in it’s benefits on this side of the pond than that.

As I say I think the attitude of threat, intimidation and suppression is a lot more prevalent in the US than many other places.

**

For example in the article you cited on domestic abuse this is what the person thought was needed –

"Adequate protection of victims relies on an effective police response, with each element of the criminal justice system -- the courts, CPS, the Prison and Probation Services -- working together. Supporting victims encompasses the work of many agencies -- Local Authority Housing, Homelessness and Social Services officials, the voluntary sector providers of refuge and other services, and, in some cases, Mental Health, alcohol and drug abuse services."

Now in the thread Gun Ownership is MAD? post 271- Pitt’s idea was to arm the person who had been abused.

A reply I gave at the time went like this – “I’ve met many abused individuals and I don’t think any of their situations would have been best dealt with by getting a gun (it may have even made a bad situation worse). They needed social and economic help. Money for getting away, secure and private housing for them and their kids, counselling, assistance in getting work, changing their name, location etc.
Many of these men and women and children are emotionally distraught, and as you have agreed before such psychologically damaged people might not be the best people to give guns to”

His reply – “And each and every one of these women got the help they needed? Who praytell funded this for each and every one of these women?”

Well the voluntary sector but also publicly funded social services, the UK state welfare system, the British tax payer. That is why I support such things but he seems a bit more worried by the expense rather than wanting to give long-term help.

Look at the differing attitudes, I don’t think bringing guns in on either side in such a fraught situation is a good idea, my view are that these people need help to get passed it and assistance with getting on in their lives.
While Pitt’s response is that since the abuser could be armed the person whose been abused needs to be armed, to equalise the situation, to make herself as threatening and intimidating as he is.


**

 

Please then explain in detail what you meant, sadly it seems you chop around a bit in your details or perhaps honestly it might just be me, Im willing to accept that fact.

I think I have said partly the same thing many times over and over although it would be sadly used after the fact since and I hope you can agree with this... While faced with a violent situation and a person is sweeping the building with a gun, yu not knowing his/her background trying to find out the problem is less likely going to save your life.

Im not saying pack a gun but obviously something would be needed to save yourself and others until we can understand how to change things that set people off on killing sprees. Again if I knew the world would be violent crime free I would be willing to give up my hobbies and seek another just so others could live in peace.

Again I ask how are they stopping social assistance programs needed to help? How are they holding society back. You made the statement now please explain in detail why you believe this or how this is?

Oh come on now, my post are full of site links as to where I aquired information and as for my opinions well I cant offer links to myself, as for conversations I have with others I wont hardly use that as its worthless to do as is mostly opinions.

Now post #26 you made alot of comments and again it seems better to be in guncrazy as most of your comments are but again Im sidetracking to answer.

You say alot but you never do anything but say things like :

Insultive and opinion

The same has been said about you so fair is fair

Lie, well please when you wish to discredit and claim I lie please take the time to quote my lie. I have been honest enough to quote my facts when I give information. Its easy to call a person a liar when you dont have to prove it, I guess I could do the same to you but preschool games is not what is trying to be accomplished here, a viable solution to ending violent crimes is.

Again I ask you explain in greater detail, if myself an others keep reading your replies the same way either that is its meaning or your not conveying your point. I would love to read and understand your mindset, it may assist in the goal of a violent crime free world.

I think I see that violence is around and people feel there is a need to protect themselves from it. This might be by building safe homes, calling law enforcement, self arming, alarm systems ect. Now this is only a means of imediate issues but you are correct it does not solve the long term problems, that is what we are hopefully all here for on this thread. See in some regards I can agree with you. There might be some hope.

That is partly true. First just becuase you have a weapon does not mean you have the ability to use it. If not used it now is a weapon that can be used against you. Second a person with mental issues might more likely use the weapon for other purposes most likely self destruction ( a quick way out of a bad situation and sadly might if involved take thier child too). Lastly if the gun is used to actually stop her attacker, if she had it in her to shoot to protect her and her baby now she has to live with it forever no matter how justified the shooting may have been. Step forward even more, the baby is 4 years old and sees the mother kill the father even in self defence, assured issues will be there for a long time.

Sadly here in the US the welfare system seems to be taken advantage of alot. (NOW DONT GET MAD PEOPLE AT THE FOLLOWING) Some people will be on welfare and work under the table, some women are on it and say they rent a room but actually live with boyfriends who make great money, some exploit the system and ruin it for others. I think a seperate system needs to be implace to assist victims of violence and there might be some Iam unaware of so again we agree on some aspects. Now the quote redneck in me says, you beat a woman or a child I think they should chain your damn feet behind a pickup truck and drag your ass to death down a gravel road!

Well if the abuser was not dealt with and the woman was not out of the house yet perhaps it would help or lower the risk against her but if instead she knew she would be safe and her child would be safe the need or possible need would never come about. Again this is a goal we need to work toward.

I dont think the goal will say step one no guns and step two we solve the problem. I think there will need to be steps of social assistance programs for victims, strict punishment and in some cases death for the attackers and when things roll around maybe then guns will be a thought of the past??? Might be.