must be nice.

it's not so nice in the americas, north, central, and south.. I'm sure parts of asia and africa
are the same, with the widespread availability of ak-47s, even old WW-I/WW-II weapons like sten-guns. petty street gangs, even in 3rd world countries, have access to all sorts of guns. this is reality.

Well, that probably explains the difference in perspective between us.

If i where to live in a place where guns are widespread, i would probably want to own, or at least have the right to own one as well.

If you'd live in a place where no-one has guns, you'd probably like me would consider that to be a luxury position that you would want to preserve. The price for preserving this position is ofcourse that you also abstain from the right to posses such machinery yourself in that case.

On the whole i understand that in many parts of the world, especially the rural parts where you have bears and such, it is a totally different issue.
What amazes me sometimes is the fanatism with wich the right to have guns is being defended.
I can think of rights that would be of higher priority to me.

If entheogen users had that same ferociousness, than all entheogens would be legal by now in most countries.

perhaps if entheogens were already established in the cultural norms of society

and I completely agree with your aversion to right-wing nutjobs; those are radicals, every bit as paranoid and deluded as left-wing radicals. They are, in many ways, ignorant and intolerant of opposing views; socially maladaptive. Just want you to know that neither I, nor others on here who are pro-gun, are like that. We have more of a live/let live mentality, without interference of big government. that is the libertarian mindset; moderate.

I don't know of anyone who does psychedelics that leans far right.
doesn't make sense, from a social standpoint.

Yeah, I think people screaming bloody murder for what some would see as slight infringements on a particular percieved right comes from the incremental removal of those rights. They are not going to just come out tomorrow and completely ban them, if/when it happens it will be from succession of seemingly small parts of that right.

Polytrip I do think its important that you realize you are in an exceptional country with an extremely low rate of violent crime compared to many parts of the world. I think its great how low the serious crime is in your country and I think the Netherlands has done a great job overall making a safe prosperous society. Also you have a sane police force and a relatively sane government (relatively I know about some of the parties you guys got now)

Although one area where your being a bit hypocritical is the area of pensions. Most pension funds in the netherlands are invested in a significant portion in the weapons industry. So although no one is buying guns you are making it easier for them to be sold to war zones.

Concerning gun availability and violent crime however its not always a correlation. My partner is from south africa and there no one is allowed to buy guns legally unless you have a special license to hunt certain kinds of game. Yet the violent crime rate is one of the highest in the world. Criminals still get guns and stabbings and other kinds of assaults are through the roof. Its terrible and sad really. I often debate with my girlfriend if things would be 'safer' if regular people could purchase hand guns to protect their homes. She thinks it would lead to more shoot outs and violence but maybe it would be the opposite. People might think twice about breaking into peoples houses if there was a gun owner inside. Its tough to say.



Actually something like 90% of the guns being seized that are traceable are coming from the US illegally. The untraceable guns which are usually the more heavy duty stuff is believed to be coming from central and south america, often left overs from civil wars. But your basic hand gun or assault rifle is most likely made in US and being sold by some jerk small time gun store owner who doesn't care how many people die from his weapons.

Thats not necessarily true regarding south america. Firstly regarding polytrip's opinion, as I said before I am also against guns (not only personal possession but the industry in general), and yet I come from south america, in one of the most violent cities and was living in a particulary tricky neighborhood, and for many years in my life I heard gunshots on a daily basis, even had bullets end up in my backyard, and had dead people get "disposed" in my street

In the country I come from there are some gun controls but still you can easy enough get the license. Of course a lot of the weapons that the criminals will have are actually coming from the black market or being sold by the police, but to me this is no argument for increasing the availability of guns to the common person. I have seen upclose enough times how the common man having a gun can actually lead to several problems (shoot-outs that kill innocent people, criminals acting more violent if they find somebody with a gun, guns from common man getting stolen and used in the organized crime, etc etc).

Note that I dont say there absolutely isnt any case where from an individual perspective a gun might not protect someone, but in the long term and when one thinks broadly of the effects of guns in general it will be obvious (at least imo) that they will create more problems than they solve.

I feel all gun industry should be completely discouraged, that there should be way more investment in research and use of effecive non-lethal weapons (both for police and common man), that there should be investment in reforming the judiciary system, that there should be reform in prisons to change from absurd unnefective inhumane punishment cages/crime schools to become reforming-teaching centers, that there should be way more investments in education instead, that there should be investment in social changes in poor areas, that there should be investment in reforming the police, etc etc etc etc.

Only these kind of changes will change anything in long term. Arming the common man might seem like it helps in an individual level but its not only an inneficient measure, its also destructive in the long term, as well as it socially sends a very wrong message and negatively educates society regarding priorities and what kind of solutions to problems are 'recommended' by leaders.

Yea man, another great post. I am interested in particular by the idea of researching less than lethal weapons for use by civilians AND police. That would dramatically change a few scenarios here and there, i think. Not that non- or less-than-lethal weapons cant backfire some way or another. Since one (probably) wont kill anyone with these kind of weapons, they might be easier on the conscience. It might actually be 'easier' to use such a weapon (violence). Would such weapons lead to more or less violence? Indeed, these weapons are developed for 'violence' only. Unlike guns i might add.

And how is 'more or less violence' related to 'feelings of safety' I can imagine 'more violence' lead to 'more feelings of safety'. I can also imagine 'more feelings of safety' leading to 'more violence'...

Perhaps it is time to expand this fruitful discussion? Pls let's not repeat the whole discussion, in different words, again.

Good questions. I wonder what others think.. Do you guys think that non-lethal weapons would lead to more reckless use of them instead? Is there any measure (appart from educational) that could help preventing this from happening?

But then again, at least it wouldnt be a life-threatening violence. Also, considering that you would know your "enemy" wouldnt die, I think maybe you would think twice before using it unnecessarily because if unjustly used, it could always come back to you (the person sueing you, etc). Maybe a more specific legislation regarding non-lethal weapon use could help?

depends on the weapon
you've already heard numerous reports of police killing people with tazers.

The problem with safety-policies is that governments often tend to lean either to the left or to the right.

Very tough measures against crime are futile if too many people live in poverty with no perspective of a better future.
Governments leaning towards the right tend not to (want to) see this.

On the other hand, a very fair society that is too weak on dealing with crime, will have more trouble with it eventually than if they'd properly dealt with it in the first place.
Crime does a lot of harm to society.

Politicians on the left, although in europe more than in america, often look at crime and dealing with it as an item for the political right instead of seeing it as something that is as much a political left as a right issue.
If you want a fair society where the weak are being protected against the strong and where everybody is protected againts injustice, wich is what the left says it wants, then you should also be for tough measures againts crime.

I like the american 'three strikes & you're out' doctrine, since i think it is reasonable and fair. If a criminal refuses to learn lessons from being cought twice and knows he's run out of second chances and then still does these things society cannot accept, then he's either too stupid or too weak morally to belong on the street in a free society and in most cases he will actually be both.

If people who don't belong on the street dissapear behind bars on time, i think crime in almost every western nation could easily be reduced by 50%. Of all the crimes comitted, the percentage of crimes commited by second offenders is usually quite high, depending on the sort of crime.

There is almost nothing that is fair about the American criminal justice system. Until you or someone you know has been through it you have very little idea how bad it really is. I've been arrested 4 times in life, nearly all of it total bullshit. With your reasoning that would make me automatically eligible for years upon years in jail. I don't see how that's fair when I've never harmed anyone nor put anyone in serious danger from any of the things I got in trouble for. Obviously it depends on the crime but legal systems that refuse to be flexible and see the human side of issues are a bunch of bullshit. Spend sometime in jail and you won't view things so simply.

yeah man, we have for profit prisons and other organizations that lobby for things like longer jail sentences, especially for victim-less crimes. Putting people in prison can be a very profitable industry.

Yes and it runs far deeper. Police can steal your property literally take your car take your house take things when you are found guilty of certain crimes. The state can take your kids in civil court! Its scary and its sickening.

The law can't be black and white and still be just. Life is not black and white.

But any justice system that's corrupt or otherwise denies people a fair trial is automatically flawed.
That's not an argument against being tough on crime and having long sentences for violent crimes.
Or giving someone a limited amount of chances in society.

Having murderers go free after having spent only a few years in prison, only to have them arrested the next day again for yet another murder is something that eats the very tissue of society. it undermined trust, both in the government and society as a whole as well from people in eachother individually.
Eventually it will lead to political radical movements taking controll and a fucked-up justice system.

All the things you mention about the american system, we increasingly see in europe as well. In my view they often are politically enforced compensations for a justice system that fails to protect people.

That would only make sense if, first of all, there was an obvious distinction between victimless crimes (which shouldnt even be crimes in the case of drugs for example), non-violent crimes, violent crimes and very violent crimes, secondly, if on the "first strikes" there would be offers of rehabilitation, psychological help and so on, and thirdly if the prison system would really help rehabilitating people (or at least try to, even if not all people would take advantage from it or be in the condition to really change) and not just "punishing" them and sweeping the social dirt under the carpet for a while

amen
feds can plant evidence on your property if they really want it, and your property will be seized. not much you can do about it

some laws are deliberately made vague so as to benefit the local/state gov't.


i've been arrested a few times on bullshit (tickets I didn't pay for missing a front license plate...f that). real serious infraction there.

-Victimless crimes should indeed not be crimes in the first place.
-prisonsentences aren't meant to hurt people, but mainly to protect society against hurt.
-There should be good rehabilitation programs
-People who're mentally ill (i think a rather large percentage of all the people who commit crimes, larger at least than officially recognised) should be treated as patients in the first place and often should rather be commited in mental institutions than prisons.

Allowing people to commit terrible violent crimes, even when it is out of compassion and willingness to endlessly give them new chances in society, is eventually deeply immoral.

There comes a moment when the options are simply limited to risking another victim on the one hand and risking putting someone in prison for the rest of his life, who may never commit a crime again.
Depending on how you asses the risk and the severity of the crime, it is i think clear to everybody that, even though it is in a sense a defeat of the justice system to give-up attempts to rehabilitate a person, it is immoral to give someone that other chance.

Mostly because in the end the choice of where to lay responsabillity/risk, is between a possible victim and someone who already commited violent crimes.
It would already be in a sense immoral to call that a morally equal choice, since it denies individual responsability.

If we could beat corruption than perhaps the system could work. We wouldnt need to fight symptoms with ineffective, general measures by law that could and probably would be abused. Untill that time (utopia) i like to keep my options open.
I cant see the future. so cant you. Dont waste cards.

Edit: sorry, some distractions here..

About the prison and rehabilitationsystem. Couldnt we just put the ones that wont/cant be helped away for good? You cant let them back in, immoral indeed. I fear those criminals more than i fear guns. Why not ban criminals that kill or commit other heavy crimes? Put them in places where they can do usefull work, perhaps as therapy, and for as far as possible. These people can be screened again so now and then to see whether or not there are possiblilities.

I think the money, the knowledge (your ideas are more promising ; ), the data and the experience are all here to create sort of an utopia. Let's say even the very sick twisted heavy crime and rape offenders would eventually return to society and take full perhaps even better responsibility. What a brave new world it would be. It is just that i dont see the (hidden) world leaders attempting to accomplish that. So then what is the rest all about?

So what platform are we building on? What relative budget? What future budget for humane affairs? If you have less money than you do now, and this is probably your future, are you still willing to spend on prisoners? So we cant win by fighting the symptoms only. There will be more criminals (more humans) Too much to handle in an optimal and humane way. What do you do? Are they still individual cases? Or are they numbers?

Are guns individual cases? Or are they numbers?

My troubled mind needs some rest lol.

I understand what you mean and see the distinct you meant on what kinds of crimes deserve more attention. Society does have to be tough on violent crime but it also has to come up with solutions to prevent violent crime. More and more enforcement and harsher and harsher penalties won't do much if the underlying causes of violent crime are not addressed.

I think perhaps a better understanding, a more realistic and biological understanding of human nature will help address some of these issues.

Mmmm, I do feel like non-lethal weapons tend to encourage violence. For instance, when I was a young adolescent, we regularly solved differences with BB guns. Not in an organized way, things simply escalated until it was a full-fledged BB firefight and then someone would eventually give up. Because the weapons in question didn't do any permanent damage (besides a few scars) we were quite quick to bring them out.

I'm guessing that police equipped with a moderately-powered pellet pistol would probably waste no time in getting it out and pumping someone full of non-lethal lead, if they had that option.