The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
"Black Women Who Once Hated Guns Are Embracing Them as Crime Soars"
From today's article in the Washington Post (Peter Jamison) (reprinted, without a paywall, in the Philadelphia Tribune), documenting a trend that I generally very much favor:
Like many Black women in [the D.C. area] …, [Patrice Parker had] viewed guns for most of her life as the root of the violence that had wrecked countless lives in her community.
That changed, paradoxically, after her son was shot to death in a parking lot not far from her home. Exasperated with the police response and in despair over the sheer number of weapons on the streets, Parker decided there was only one way to protect what remained of her family. And that was to pick up a gun herself.
"I always felt like you needed to take the guns off the street. But the way things are now …. I don't feel safe anymore," she said. "You can't trust nobody."
Across America, Black women are taking up arms in unprecedented numbers…. Scarred—sometimes literally—by the firsthand consequences of gun violence and disenchanted with decades of urban gun-control policies that they regard as largely ineffective, some Black women in D.C. and other cities are embracing a view long espoused by Second Amendment activists: that only guns will make them safer….
As a child growing up in Southeast Washington during that era, Keeon Johnson learned to fear the weapons that routinely ended the lives of her neighbors.
"I wasn't into guns at all," Johnson said, "because we were told that guns were bad."
Decades later, serving as the Democratic chairwoman of an Advisory Neighborhood Commission in Ward 8, Johnson began to wonder whether her faith in her party's repeated promises of stricter gun control was misplaced…. [Eventually, s]he and her husband, Frenchie Johnson, … became NRA-certified instructors last year. Now they teach classes, catering specifically to Black people from D.C. and Prince George's, out of their home in White Plains, Md….
One of their first students was Janae Hammett, 37, who had gone to elementary school with Johnson in D.C. and whose children's father was shot to death in 2010. Given that history, Hammett said she was initially "on eggshells" around guns. But her comfort level increased the more she shot, and eventually she joined Johnson in forming the Second Amendment Sista Society, a club for Black women in the Washington region who are interested in guns.
Hammett said her transformation was driven, fundamentally, by desperation. Illegal guns, it seemed, were everywhere. If she couldn't count on anyone else to protect her, why shouldn't she legally own a gun to protect herself?
"I don't think the government, police or anybody will ever get a hold of the illegal guns," she said….
As a woman in a dangerous place, she had always feared she would be unable to defend her family. Her son's killers were still out there. But with a gun, Parker felt less vulnerable, especially with the knowledge she had gained at the Choppa Community [a local gun range].
"They took the fear out of me," she said.
Parker was waiting for the paperwork to come through on her concealed-carry license, and in the meantime she was trying to share her revelation with others….
The article cites two experts who argue that gun possession undermines safety rather than promoting it, but none who argues the contrary (and there certainly are prominent criminologists, such as Gary Kleck, who have indeed argued that gun possession generally tends to make the possessor safer). But in any case, I thought it was noteworthy that the article documented this trend, and took a generally positive tone on it.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Good on her for opening her eyes and mind.
Gun safety classes should be taught to law abiding students in high school, as driver's ed is.
One of the things, she would learn, is the police will arrest her, and she will be sued. The lawyer profession is totally biased in favor of the job generating client. Kill a thug, unemploy a lawyer.
Diverses finally catch a clue, you are not being protected. This is the biggest lawyer profession, the rampant crime in this country for the sake of a few lousy, make work, rent seeking lawyer jobs. This betrayal is unforgivable.
Next insight assignment, Honey. The people who streeted the murderers of your son are your tormentors. Find them, torture them, kill them. To deter
Beyond the unforgivable pussification of the American male, the vile toxic lawyer profession pussified our warriors. They cannot kill the enemy without facing prosecution. Commissars of political correctness have been embedded down to tactical units. They have cancelled the orders of four stars. They got our warriors defeated and chased out of 6 countries by Stone Ages savages with $50 weapons.
These should all be named, found, tried, and summarily executed for treason.
Man defending a crime victim from an aggressive homeless man charged by the scumbag lawyer profession.
https://news.yahoo.com/bronx-smoke-shop-worker-charged-231400848.html
Be careful what you wish for.
I guess we’ll need them when the right-wing authoritarians start coming to round up those of a different religion than whatever DeSantis, Alito, Thomas, and Flynn decide is the right one?
The pro-gun arguments have always been that right-wingers need to defend themselves from the left-wing commies running the guvment. But what if it’s right-wing fascists running things?
Apparently the answer is to buy guns no matter what. Because they make us safer?
Well, Ukraine is screaming for guns, initially literally small arms as a start.
And RRR is the biggest movie in the world. It's fun action, but overlays getting guns into the hands of Indians, so they can resist their British overlords, who made it illegal.
If it hadn't been such a cultural thing, I'm sure Hollywood would have squashed it in service to their modern overlords.
So we should arm Antifa?
You aren't supposed to post on topics like this.
Approved topics are January 6th, why we aren't in a recession, and why the EPA taking over management of the grid isn't a major question.
You forgot how Amurica needs to take in every Tomas, Ricardo, and Moe-hammad who wants to come blow up, I mean, live here.
You are not helping the Conspirators by highlighting their partisan cowardice.
The first rule at Volokh Conspiracy is that we don't talk about things the proprietor finds embarrassing or inconvenient at the Volokh Conspiracy.
Well, it's either that or bizarrely frequent use of vile racial slurs.
Rev. Cool legal analysis, bruh. Where did you go to law school? I want to learn what you do.
The sole factor that is common to all jurisdictions with low crime rates is public self help. Some are poor, some rich, religious, secular, urban, rural. American, African. All have one thing in common. The lawyer client, the criminal, is more afraid of the neighbors than of the worthless police, and criminal justice system. The males have not been pussified by the scumbag lawyer profession. They will kick the ass of the criminal, and kill him.
Yes, because your inanities are routinely censored by Prof. Volokh.
Bored. You are in the business. Have you ever seen the smallest ort of the slightest evidence of legal training in the Rev's comments?
His repeated imposition of viewpoint-driven censorship is another of the points the proprietor would prefer not to have mentioned at this blog.
OK Groomer.
What incidents are you talking about? From what I've gleaned, Olympic stars when it happened are now fat with their own 10 year olds.
Your dumbass troll posting is proof positive there's no censorship on this blog, for if their was, your horseshit-for-brains commentary would have been ban hammered years ago.
The only way a gun will help her out on the street is if she keeps it drawn and ready to fire at all times.
How do you figure?
Someone who's going to jump her or shoot her will not be gracious enough to wait the five seconds or so while she rummages around in her pocketbook or coat pocket, carefully fishes out the (loaded) gun, cocks it and aims it.
Do you feel that it's similarly pointless for police officers to carry guns?
Police need guns when being called to an existing situation. And trying to jump or shoot a police officer is a stupid thing to do, not the least because his partner is probably covering him, or headquarters will quickly realize what’s happened and send help.
By analogy, if a law-abiding citizen sees another citizen being assaulted, and that law-abiding citizen is armed, they can intervene.
A criminals should know that trying to "jump" an armed individual is a stupid thing to do.
Easy to tell someone who knows nothing about either firearms or how to carry/use one. Kinda like depending upon PETA member for instructions on how to broil your sirloin.
Tell me why I’m wrong.
Because there are countless examples of effective defensive gun use by people who weren't "keep[ing] it drawn and ready to fire at all times." You may recall one from the national news recently.
For one reason most people who carry carry concealed, and thus do have an element of surprise.
And oftentimes the criminal element aren't phi beta cappas and you can see the wheels grinding before the act.
Dr. Gary Kleck of FSU estimated there are 2.1 to 2.5 million instances of defensive gun use annually based on survey day, in over 81% of the cases no shots were fired.
Okay, since you asked. Probably won't do any good because you're the kind of emotional thinker who refuses to consider logic, reason, and facts, but we'll give it a try
I'm reasonably sure you are not familiar with The Cooper Color Code and Threat Assessment. Yet you post about the timing of attacks and response time in return as if you know what you are actually discussing.
Why are you so misogynic to assume that women don't know how to carry a firearm. It's obvious that you have no idea that dedicated holsters and purses are made specifically for women and make it safe for them to carry an easily accessible firearm.
Cocking a gun? Do you know what a striker fired handgun is? Of course not. Do you know what the term "locked and loaded" refers to on a non-striker fired handgun. Of course not. Yet, you actually, really post about "cocking a gun." Do you think we are all living in 1885 and the SAA is the most sophisticated handgun available?
It's willful, deliberate ignorance such as these three thoughts of yours that is the reason why gun controllers have pretty much lost all traction with the general public. As they have found out that they have been lied to, and purposefully mis-led by people such as you it has forfeited any trust they used to have for your side.
I realize that I am posting this in vain, and next week you'll be posting the same three types of mis-facts and false statements, but perhaps a Dear Reader here will have learned a bit about not trusting you and your kind on much of anything you have to post.
Excellent point, I missed the whole "cocking" point at first read.
I guess captcrises went to the Alec Baldwin school of gun safety.
But really, I don't mind people who don't own guns or know much about them expressing their opinion, but please don't act like an expert when you know, and we know, you don't know what you are talking about.
5 seconds! I can draw and shoot all 5 rounds of my .357 revolver from my retention holster in less than 2 seconds. Someone proficient with a Glock can put 19 rounds in a target in less time.
Folk are certainly entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. Reality is a real thing. ????
Setting aside your evidently poor knowledge of holster options, you're ignoring the deterrent effect that comes after some level of the populace in a given area arms itself and criminals begin to understand that assaulting someone is much more of a crapshoot than before.
That is a remarkably ignorant claim even for you. It is directly contradicted by the experiences of the many thousands of citizens who carry their weapons (in holsters) and successfully use them in defensive actions each year.
Ahem. There's a 22 year old guy in Indiana that begs to differ.
There's this thing called situational awareness...
Which far too many people don't have.
Someone who's going to jump her or shoot her will not be gracious enough to wait the five seconds or so while she rummages around in her pocketbook or coat pocket, carefully fishes out the (loaded) gun, cocks it and aims it.
Yeah, that's why there are never any successful uses of firearms in self-defense.
Are you paid to make a fool of yourself, or is it just a hobby?
At her? Far mor likely to be a bystander in some other incident, where there will be time.
Yeah, right, like every cop/secret service agent does? What a Ma-roon (HT B. Bunny)
Hey, Mengele. Every cop and secret service agent has extensive training and, likely, experience. The typical person with a concealed carry permit has neither. Training requirements for a permit are minimal and consist mostly of classroom training aimed at preventing carriers from becoming criminals.
You obviously have not paid attention to the research. The average concealed carry permit holder has more training and experience than is required for police. The average carrier goes far beyond the mandatory minimums because they (mostly) enjoy it.
Do you have a reference for that?
Where's your references for the bullshit you wrote above about conceal-carry permit holders?
You want to demand the source for something which disagrees with your idiocy, but you don't bother to post your own sources.
Hey, cut Stella some slack, she's just a "Dog"
"You want to demand the source for something which disagrees with your idiocy, but you don't bother to post your own sources."
Jesus. Rossami implied that I'm wrong and that there's research to show it. Doesn't it make sense that I would ask for a reference to that research? If it exists, I'd like to read about it.
It was covered in articles right here at Reason. About six months ago, maybe? I'm afraid I didn't bother to keep the articles bookmarked but perhaps someone else in the thread still has a link.
What a fucking moron. I'll let you in on a dirty little secret, except for SWAT unless a cop shoots on their own time and dime the average legal gun owner can shoot better than them. That's because ammo and range time costs money, and paying cops to go to the range costs money as well. So one of the first things that gets sacrificed in any police organization is the training budget for marksmanship.
"unless a cop shoots on their own time and dime the average legal gun owner can shoot better than them. "
In order to become a police officer, one must get through a training course and, I assume, pass some competency tests involving marksmanship, gun safety, legal concerns, etc. In Texas, where I live, anybody over 21 eligible to own a firearm can purchase one and carry concealed with absolutely no training at all. Even back in the days when Texas required a CCL, training requirements were pretty minimal and included about a half hour (maybe an hour) group session at a local range where students were required to hit a silhouette at seven yards, as I recall. Nobody failed. Now you tell me that all these untrained people take it upon themselves to finance their own firearms competency/marksmanship training and become more proficient than police officers because police officers are too damned cheap to maintain proficiency.
If you tell me that the average police officer is not a very good marksman, I'll believe that. But, you are telling me that "the average legal gun owner can shoot better than" the police. I think you're cracked.
my little sister could shoot better at 10 than most adult cops, but then I come from a strange family, where we got our own guns on our 10th birthday (just a Marlin .22, guess it'd be considered an "Assault Weapon" or maybe not, tubular (totally "Tubular" man!) magazine held, don't remember 15-20 LR, or if you didn't mind cycling the action, you could shoot even more 22 "Shorts" ,
12 or 13 we'd get a Remington 700 in 30:06, 16 a Revolver (only 38sp, no magnums for kids (they were too expensive)
Frank
Non police citizens who carry firearms are overwhelmingly firearms enthusiasts. That means we shoot a lot. The requirements for me to carry in California are not extremely difficult but they do require some skill and I shoot more every week than the required training for two years and I'm nothing special. And every firearms enthusiast that I've seen shoot would easily pass the police officer requirements. Some cops are great shooters. Most are the equivalent of the Star Wars Storm Trooper memes. They can hit the broadside of a barn. It just might not be the right barn.
Your ignorance is beyond parody. Good job pretending to be stupid.
Good job being stupid.
Great thing about America, if you don't think it will help then you don't have to carry.
If she feels safer carrying a gun then she can, and you don't have a damn thing to say about it. I mean other than anonymous blog posts.
It's tremendously unfortunate that the inevitable fallout of our underincarceration crisis provided the impetus for this trend. Thank goodness that our Supreme Court is willing to give these victims a chance to protect themselves when their governments refuse to do so. And shame on the states and cities falling over themselves to take up the neo-Confederate cause of illegally disarming black Americans.
well, they can't abort every unborn black baby
Too bad, innit, you pusillanimous prick.
You do realize that the eugenics programs were pushed by the same political party that was (and still is attempting to) illegally disarming blacks, right?
No.
Someone didn't pay attention in history.
Name one Democrat, Mengele, who advocates different gun laws for blacks or who advocates illegally disarming anybody.
Somnolent Joe, and Bozo O'rourke for starters
Just like DilDon, you continue to lose.
Bozo Robert Francis Orourke said, wait, lets go to the exact quote....
Presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke reiterated his support for a mandatory gun-buyback program of assault-style rifles on Thursday and said, “Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47.”
Looking for the Somnolent Joe one, but "Get a Shotgun!" (and fire it out the window!) is common knowledge, like his threatening "Corn Pop" with a bicycle chain...
Frank
O'Rourke is advocating for changing the law. Saying that changing the law is somehow illegal takes a special kind of dumb. But, we know you're special.
""Get a Shotgun!" (and fire it out the window!)"
You can't even get this straight. Biden suggested shooting "through the door" rather than through the window. Through the door is even worse advice than through the window. Though Biden is a lawyer and graduated from Syracuse he should not be giving people advice on self defense matters.
Or, it takes a basic understanding of the role of the Constitution in prohibiting certain changes to certain laws. Potayto, potahto.
"Or, it takes a basic understanding of the role of the Constitution in prohibiting certain changes to certain laws. Potayto, potahto."
The state of current 2d amendment law is that assault weapons (as defined in the laws) bans have not been found to be unconstitutional. To the best of my knowledge, these bans are still being enforced in several states. If other states or the feds were to enact assault weapons bans and enforce them, these states would be violating no law. Consider an analogy to abortions prior to Roe v Wade. Does anybody actually believe that enforcement of abortion bans prior to Roe was illegal?
That's easy. Gavin Newsome and every democrat in the California legislature. The governor of New York. Biden. Pelosi. Feinstein. Nearly every democrat in national office. Do you want me to keep going?
Advocating that more restrictive gun laws be enacted is not the same thing as advocating that people be illegally disarmed. This is not hard.
How about the founder of Planned Parenthood.
https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-pp-exterminating/fact-check-planned-parenthood-founder-margaret-sangers-1939-quote-on-exterminating-black-population-taken-out-of-context-idUSL2N2X11YN
Sanger was a Socialist.
You’re right. Socialist are at the opposite end of the political spectrum from Bernie, AOC, Talib Squid, Bush, Warren et al.
My understanding of the reference to Sanger was to imply that the Democratic Party was responsible for the eugenics movement of he late 19th and early 20th centuries. Quite simply, Sanger was a member of a Socialist party.
Quite simply, Sanger was a member of a Socialist party.
You either have no idea what you are writing about or are attempting to gaslight.
Sanger was a member of the Progressive party, the party of Teddy Roosevelt and Taft. Later adherents switched to the Democrat Party of FDR. Many Democrats today refer to themselves as Progressive.
underincarceration crisis?
Underincarceration, noun- The state or condition of habitually letting criminals run amok rather than jailing them appropriately.
Yeah, I know you think cities are crime-ridden hellholes because you believe whatever you hear on Breitbart or whatever.
I'm interested in what someone with actual critical thinking and a connection to reality thinks.
And how will you know when you finally come upon a true Scotsman?
Don't know if Noscitur is a Scottsman, but I think it was pretty clear from my asking the question in reply to his comment that he was who I wanted to engage.
We've spent years letting too many criminals out of jail too soon, and now we're paying the (easily foreseeable) price.
To be clear, we = Americans across the country: while the trend is perhaps most visible in the cities Arthur Kirkland likes to brag about, it is in no way confined to them.
Is that even correlated in time to the recent increase in violent crime? How do you square it with the continued drop in nonviolent crime?
Do you have any reason to think that's the main causal factor and not, say, the economy, or lead, or any one of the lots of external factors being theorized?
America has a high per-capita incarceration rate in comparison with near-peer Democratic countries, all of whom seem to have as good or better crime rates; I don't know that higher incarceration means safer.
https://www.prisonpolicy.org/global/2021.html
This is an advocacy group, but they make a pretty good statistical argument that the connection you assume is not at all clear.
It’s still way too low. We’re it up to me, we’d double prison capacity across the country. And there would be minimum sentences for all who were found guilty.
That aside, the entire issue is axiomatic. More criminals in prison, less criminals on the street.
Why do you hat the Jan 6 protesters so much?
the entire issue is axiomatic. More criminals in prison, less criminals on the street.
Even that is not at all clear. You put someone in jail, it's not like everything else settles down without any ripple effects.
Plus, of course, what happens when they come out, having been in a pretty shitty system for a long time?
I think we have both an over incarceration problem and an under incarceration problem.
Non-violent crimes including drug crimes are likely over incarcerated.
Violent, and potentially violent crimes like car theft and burglary are under incarcerated.
I think people need to think harder about these questions - the simple law & order cause & effect paradigm is intuitive, but not at all clear when you dig in.
Standard Sarcastroism:
No clear link between criminals and crime.
"You did not PROOOVE the sudden sharp pain from your thumb was caused by the impact from the hammer!"
Sorry that critical thinking is hard for you.
"America has a high per-capita incarceration rate in comparison with near-peer Democratic countries..."
I don't think 'the correct incarceration rate is X%' is the right way to look at the problem.
Presumably we agree that, say, 100% of serial killers ought to be in prison? So if country A has 1 per 100K serial killers in prison, and country B has 2 per 100K, that doesn't inexorably lead to the conclusion that B is jailing too many serial killers. It might also be that country A needs to make sure it doesn't have a bunch of serial killers on the loose, or that there is some reason people in B are more likely to be serial killers, or something else. But it is surely true that stopping the analysis with the differing rates isn't useful.
I do know that, anecdotally, I routinely see news stories where e.g. a 28 year old with several prior violent felony convictions is arrested for his most recent crime spree, two months after being released from his most recent prison sentence. ISTM that particular individual has been under incarcerated.
Yeah, it doesn't inexorably lead to the conclusion, but it does suggest it.
Your hypothetical is extreme and includes certainties that no system can include.
If you have any real-world thoughts about why we have this disparity in incarceration with seemingly little to show for it, I'd be interested to hear.
Have you read 'Ghettoside' by Jill Leovy? TL;DR - she is an LA Times reporter who followed the homicide squad around for a year. She describes a world with a very different culture than, I expect, the one you and I grew up in. At a guess, the most typical life trajectory you saw growing up was going to college and getting a job, and the neighborhood beefs were settled via lawsuits or involving the police. The culture she found was one where if you ask 12 year olds what life path they expected over the next few years, the answer she got was 'I suppose I'll join a gang and go to prison', because essentially everyone they knew did that. If you had a beef, you got a gun and went hunting.
AFAICT, Denmark, say, doesn't have any or that culture, and so doesn't have the crime numbers we do.
I don't think that people who do armed robbery or do a revenge shooting ought to get a pass just because they were raised wrong; we can't just surrender society to people who behave like that, even if they behave like that because their parents/society/school/whatever failed them.
The big question, of course, is can we build a society where they don't grow up with that worldview? Brett will probably say they had too much Great Society; you will probably say they didn't have enough Great Society. I dunno. But it's a cultural thing, and the crime rates follow the culture. Saying we won't incarcerate more than Denmark does won't fix the cultural problem, and won't make our society as peaceful as Denmark's.
Oh yeah, I'm insulated from that entire life path.
I hadn't read Ghettoside but it did make a splash in the NPR, latte-guzzling crowd so I did hear about it.
But I you and I are rather on the same page here. Cause? Who knows. And fixes are going to be difficult and take a long, generational time. The one thing I do think is suggested is that a force perpetuating this cycle is mass incarcerator and throwing away the key.
"And fixes are going to be difficult and take a long, generational time."
Yup!
"The one thing I do think is suggested is that a force perpetuating this cycle is mass incarcerator and throwing away the key."
Again, I just think it's wrong to look at things in aggregate. Some people need to be locked up. Consider our 28 year old who (ignoring his juvenile record) has convictions at 22 for pistol whipping his girlfriend, 23 for stealing a car+chase, 25 for shooting a rival drug dealer, and now a homicide at 28 (I'll ignore the lesser crimes along the way). I submit that we have tried the lenient sentence track for him - or he would still be in jail - and it isn't working.
That's not to say you send every 17 year old joy rider to the Big House - God knows how many WWII MoH recipient bios start with the judge giving a 17 year old the choice between jail or the Marines.
But it's not a problem it helps to look at in the aggregate - you just have to look at each individual as an individual.
Harsh sentences for the salvageable are a bad idea; harsh sentences for the incorrigible are a necessity. Among other reasons, they are changing the culture of the friends and acquaintances they associate with and victimize in exactly the wrong way.
I guess I didn’t engage with your aggregate point because I don’t see how you implement that.
Policy is made in aggregate. The concept of ‘underincarceration crisis’ that set me off is addressing groups.
The idea that you need flexibility’s in your use of the penal system is a good one, but not one I think people here are arguing over much. (Though you start talking about mandatory minimums and blanket uses of prosecutorial discretion and folks come out of the woodwork).
"Policy is made in aggregate. "
For criminal justice, it shouldn't be. Individuals who are a danger to others ought to be locked up, whether that is a lot of people or none. Individuals who aren't a danger shouldn't be, regardless of the number.
Whether those numbers are the same as Denmark's is irrelevant. Suppose we were locking up fewer jaywalkers than Denmark. Does that mean we should lock up more?
I'm not sure how you individualize a policy based on laws. Are you advocating for an are where we are a country of men and not laws?
Great conversation guys.
"I'm not sure how you individualize a policy based on laws. Are you advocating for an are where we are a country of men and not laws?"
I'm not grasping your point. Sentencing people according to the particular crime they committed and their prior criminal record is standard practice and IMHO just. In fact, I think it would be quite unjust to not use those factors when deciding on the appropriate sentence.
Sentencing is not individualized, though - it's an application of a blanket formula that gives a range. Only within that range does a judge have any discretion to take individualized situation into account.
I'm not sure I hate that system myself (judges with infinite discretion seem as problematic as a zero discretion system) but it doesn't seem to comport with your point about individualized penalties.
My main issue is with the way our system leans on prison so hard. Seems to me we have lots of data in the modern era that prison is not generally good for those who commit crimes, nor for the society that those who were inside return to.
"it's an application of a blanket formula that gives a range."
At least in many state courts it is a pretty big range, and judges have wide latitude (as opposed to, at least in theory, fed court).
"My main issue is with the way our system leans on prison so hard. Seems to me we have lots of data in the modern era that prison is not generally good for those who commit crimes, nor for the society that those who were inside return to."
So, real world question: I expect we agree that, say, a first time car thief, no priors, expresses remorse, etc ought to be shown a lot of leniency - parole only, I expect. But a few years ago Seattle was having a lot of stolen cars, and the local paper went looking. They found that the median number of convictions for car theft before the offender spent any time in jail at all (other than waiting for trial, perhaps) was 11 convictions. It was common for guys to be arrested for, say, thefts #7 and 8 while out on bail for #6.
What would you do with someone who keeps stealing cars over and over?
I'm sure there are some innocent or semi-innocent people in jail. No system is 100% error free, but have you ever sat in a trial court while they did plea deals and other guilty pleas for most criminals? You don't go to jail for a dime bag of weed or even your first half a dozen petty offenses. You go to jail because you have a long list of convictions. People like to harp on about the high incarceration rate (which liberals will never say sort of correlates to our immigration rates being abnormally high for any other developed country in the world), but most people who are in fact in jail really tried hard to get there.
Sure. People in jail - they're different from you and I. Once you commit a crime you're no longer like, a human human.
You know the pro-choice arguments you declare axiomatically immoral? You're dehumanizing at least as hard.
They are humans who have made deliberate choices that resulted in incarceration...
Which does not end the inquiry about them.
Indeed. We should ask why they made these deliberate choices.
There are various reasons. Included among these reasons are calculations on the relative risk of being caught and prosecuted.
If they feel they won't be prosecuted...well...that changes the thought process.
Because people, mostly adults or at least people capable of reasoning right and wrong, are the exact same as a baby.....
You should really try better with the gaslighting....
They are different. They are just as human as you and I. But they've proven that they can't be trusted to be free in normal society.
I am only talking about criminals with victims. Drug possession and distribution (unless to a minor), too many parking tickets, loitering, sleeping in parks, etc. should never be incarcerated in my opinion. The people who commit those crimes are not a danger to society. We need to stop locking them up and used the money saved to try to find real solutions.
Good job pulling back in that second paragraph. But even then, I think you overstate things.
Under your paradigm, any property crime means someone should be sent away from 'normal society' basically forever. It's still some pretty bad othering.
Such a remedy is required for some, to be sure, but good lord are a lot of you very quick on that trigger.
Property crime is bad and usually a precursor to other violent crime. So, yes, property crime ought to be punished.
Most property crime criminals are probably on the poorer side of society and I suspect the people whose property they target are as well. Having my car stolen would be an inconvenience as it probably would be for you. Someone who can barely afford a 15-20 year old car probably doesn't have the means to replace it easily. That could mean that not only do they lose the car but they lose their job as well. (At least where I live. Public transportation is not a big thing around here.) Someone who does that much harm to a person needs to be punished. Not forever. Long enough to make a difference maybe. At least a year or two. Once they get out if they continue preying on others they need to be separated from society for longer times.
I'm not in favor of a blanket three strikes law but why should anyone convicted of a violent felony three separate times ever be free? And why should they even get three chances for some of the worst crimes? Two days ago we had a local "child" convicted of a murder he committed when he was 13. The absolute longest sentence he can receive means he will be freed on his 25th birthday. And his conviction can never be used against him in future criminal sentences and I'm sure there will be but we won't ever know because he wasn't identified to the public because he is a "child".
He walked up to a man working at a taco truck and shot him in the face. Do you believe this young individual can be trusted free in society?
Empirically, people in jail ARE different from you or I. Well, from me, at least: The modal number of convictions for crimes in this country is zero, while most people in jail have multiple convictions.
Blanket statistical points in service of making points about individuals not being the same as you is a pretty bad way to be.
Abuse of stats in service of dehumanization does not have a good history.
????????
People who have been convicted of, say, armed robbery are in fact different from me, in the same sense that people who have won an Olympic gold, climbed Everest, or performed open heart surgery have done things I haven't done. I don't see how it's dehumanizing to say Mark Spitz and I are different. Nor to say Bernie Madoff and I are different.
And I surely don't understand your statistics reference. I am indeed different from every *individual* who has won a gold medal, in the important sense that I haven't won any gold medals.
People all accomplish individual things - win medals, climb mountains, and run billion dollar frauds. There is nothing untoward on the rest of us acknowledging those individual accomplishments.
Yes, in pretty much lockstep.
Macroeconomic conditions are not well correlated with crime rates, and I'm not aware of any increase in lead exposure in the late 90s/early 2000s that would account for anything we're seeing. (I also vaguely remember encountering a closer analysis of lead management policy as implemented that calls the association with a decrease in crime into serious question, but I don't remember the details well enough to rely on it.)
If you want to propose another explanation, I'm all ears. But it seems like one that has changed significantly, is known to be closely correlated with changes in crime rates historically, and correlated with the changes we're seeing today is a likely culprit.
When you don't allow your citizens the right to a jury trial, a privilege against self-incrimination, or habeas corpus, you have more flexibility for dealing with crime. Unless you're proposing to repeal the bill of rights, I'm not sure the comparison to countries that have chosen policies we don't have access to is particularly helpful.
Lead is interesting stuff, but yeah that is more about the crime waves of the 90s than today. I just threw it in there as an example of a confounding variable.
I don't understand why due process and the right to a jury trial means you can incarcerate less people for similar effect.
This just came up in my favorite blog. A bit of a tangential topic an a single data point, but it is interesting (to me) and does show how hard it is to disaggregate the actual stats from perception.
https://jabberwocking.com/the-crime-surge-in-new-york-city-is-beyond-belief-literally/
"America has a high per-capita incarceration rate in comparison with near-peer Democratic countries, all of whom seem to have as good or better crime rates"
One of the big issues there is the relatively racially homogeneous European countries (which helps social harmony) versus the ethnically diverse US, coupled with high rates of divergence by race for incarceration.
Looking at "just" the white incarceration rate in the US, it's 261 per 100,000. That's roughly in the same range as many European countries. The African American incarceration rate however is 1,240 per 100,000 residents. That (+ an African American population that is 12-13% of total population) drives total US incarceration rates up dramatically.
Importantly, this isn't "just" in the US. The UK has a notable black population. They make up just 3% of the British population. But they make up 13% of the British incarcerated population. Other European countries, including Germany, have noted similar trends. Certain ethnic minorities, even if they represent a small percentage of the population, make up a much larger percentage of the prison population.
No actually that has nothing to do with it. What the fuck are you saying about black people?
As the (unfortunately) Late, Great John Lenin wrote,
"Happiness is a Warm Gun (Bang Bang Shoot Shoot)
When I hold you in my arms)
Oooh, oh yeah!
And when I feel my finger on your trigger
Oooh, oh yeah!
I know nobody can do me no harm
Ooh, oh yeah!
Frank "Beatles/Gun Freak"
Good for her.
Too many guns on the street driving people to get guns to protect themselves. Not the ringing endorsement of 2A's effects on society you seem to think. They're not buying guns because they feel safe. They're buying guns because they feel unsafe. Because of guns.
True, true.
If only we'd outlawed guns, the criminals shooting people and making these women afraid wouldn't be committing those crimes, because it would be illegal to have a gun to do that.
Just look at how that worked with drugs.
Toranth — The drug smuggling analogy does not work. Drugs are compact, easy to smuggle, extremely expensive for weight, and repeat business. None of those things are true for guns. To make drug-like profits in the gun trade you would have to smuggle enough to arm an entire national revolution. If you want to keep doing it, and really get rich, you have to start over, again and again with new customers. Plus which, drug smugglers can buy wholesale quantities at much smaller fractions of the retail price than can gun smugglers. If someone figured out a channel to smuggle guns into the U.S. at a profit, the criminal underworld would immediately muscle in and force conversion of the channel to drug smuggling, to make a bigger profit.
Interesting chain of deduction, and easy to verify: Mexican cartels certainly have the expertise to smuggle guns into Mexico if they found it desirable. The absence of illegal guns in Mexico thus proves your point.
Absoroka, the illegal guns in Mexico generally come from Mexican government armories; The cartels find it more economical to bribe poorly paid soldiers than to smuggle guns.
If that weren't the case Obama wouldn't have needed to create an illusion of a smuggling problem.
Certainly, it would be easy enough to smuggle the guns, contra Lathrop they're high value contraband, more valuable per pound than pot, which does get smuggled. It's just not economical when they can get full auto military weapons cheaper on their side of the border.
Well, crime in the US has been falling for a long time, so something's being done right somewhere, identifying those things should probably be done in non-partisan manner, though I'd doubt it's guns, since lots of guns in a society just means it's trivial for bad guys to get their hands on more guns, it's almost certainly not an increasingly militarised poice force with qualified immunity and no legal duty to protect citizens either. If anything, guns, cops and the private carceral state are probably keeping the crime figures from dropping even further.
The problem here is that it's fairly trivial for bad guys to get guns either way. I mean, they manage to get meth and cocaine, and those don't even have legal markets! If guns weren't legal in the US, the Mexican cartels would be glad to smuggle them North.
Generally, prohibitions are a failure, whether drugs or guns, and any policy that depends on criminals not breaking a law is pretty stupid.
The collapse of society is not worthy of celebration.
An armed society is a polite society,
saw that first hand in Somalia, Natives armed to the teeth, but polite, very polite.
"saw that first hand in Somalia, "
Perhaps in th emovies. "first hand?" Bullshit.
93' I was there, don't have to prove it to a shitbird like you.
You are correcct, you don't have to prove anything to me. You can lie with impunity.
I agree, shitbird
Mengele, I'm not a bird, I'm a dog.
Yeah, I'm not sure 'kiss my ass or I'll kill you and your family' is actually good manners, it's terrorism.
How do you get "kiss my ass or I'll kill you and your family" from "an armed society is a polite society"?!
AFAIC, you don't have to "kiss my ass," just stick to the non-aggression principle and you'll be fine.
The subject is Somalia. Mengele seems to think that Somalia is some sort of crime free paradise because of the presence of "Natives armed to the teeth." Perhaps even the lower case natives.
So, what does the US State Department have to say about how polite people (either natives or Natives) are in Somalia?
"Do not travel to Somalia due to crime, terrorism, civil unrest, health issues, kidnapping, and piracy."
Could say the same thing about Chicago.
Why?
the 50-60 peoples murdered every weekend for starters.
"50-60 peoples murdered every weekend"
2500 to 3000/year? You fucked that one up too. Have you been partaking of a shotgun bong?
My Bad, its only about 20/week, they need to get on the ball!
Murdered with guns? Wow, sounds like a polite, armed society.
If people are being polite because of the weapons, it's because they're afraid someone will attack them with the weapins - that's social control via fear of interpersonal violence.
"I always felt like you needed to take the guns off the street. But the way things are now …. I don't feel safe anymore," she said. "You can't trust nobody."
About that, Professor Volokh says, ". . . a trend that I generally very much favor:" Desperation makes him happy. We can all applaud a trend toward more desperation, made deadlier by more arms.
Professor Volokh, have you ever heard of any place at any time where civilian gun violence was out of control, and arming more civilians corrected the problem? Do you have any sense of responsibility for what you write on this topic? Any guilty inkling that someone might mistake you for a prestigious authority, with expert knowledge which deserved attention?
I am going to plead with you again. Please, get some first-hand experience with the subject you keep talking about. Learn first-hand what guns do to people when they get shot. Look at the problem straight on, as it is. This is about blood, mutilation, and casual death, inflicted fecklessly. You write as if that never crosses your mind.
Hmm, in my experience, when peoples get shot, they get holes in the area where they were shot, some live, some die. Some good (riddance) like Lee Harvey Oswald, some bad like JFK, funny but the threat of the Electric Chair didn't seem to deter Lee Harvey.
Of course maybe seeing Dirty Harry at age 9 prejudiced me,
y'all can give up your guns if you want, it'll just increase the supply,
Frank "Did I shoot 16 or only 15 times?"
"funny but the threat of the Electric Chair didn't seem to deter Lee Harvey."
Not funny at all if you give even a passing thought to the application of the death penalty in this country.
And, just for your information, there was more than one electric chair.
and nobodies been executed in one since 2013, that's the problem,
As usual, you fuck up the facts.
" ... the most recent US electrocution, of Nicholas Todd Sutton, taking place in February 2020 in Tennessee."
"that's the problem"
What? That frying people is no longer a widespread method of execution or that we in America don't execute enough people?
Both
You really are a special person, Mengele, very special.
Us Jews don't appreciate being called "Mengele", it's like if you're an N-word, and hmm, who's somebody who's really screwed over the Blacks over the years??? Sleepy/Somnolent/Demented Joe!!! What with his threatening "Corn Pop", calling Intergrated Schools "Jungle Schools", and supporting the "Crime Bill" and increasing the sentences for Crack, all because of some POS College Basketball player (anyone still remember his name)
it's like calling "Reverend" Al Sharpton (who I voted for in 04') "Biden"
Frank "just stick with the old reliables, like "Hooknose"
Too bad, Mengele, get over it.
OK, Hitler
The first person mentioned in the article is a woman whose son was murdered, you doofus.
Which left her grieving and terrified, so she bought a gun. That's trauma. That's collateral damage.
That is also you hiding from the consequences of the pro-criminal policies you endorse. That is you telling people to cower in fear because you will not allow them to defend themselves and you will make sure there are is no criminal justice or LE to protect them either.
I know what they do. It's why I have "some" S&W 10, 13(two), 19(three), 27, 28, 29, 37, 66, SA45, Remington R1, CZ 75(several versions) CZ 97, Beretta 92/M9, Makarov (E. German really sweet, Roosh-un, not as sweet, Bulgarian, rough) M1 Garand, M1 Carbine, HK91, 93, AKM-47(several) FN-FAL(Argentinian, Sweet) FN-49 (Egyptian) Carcarno like LHO used (not a bad rifle for what it is, ammo hard to find) M1A, BM-59(a Beretta M1) and of course a few "AR's"
Frank "No more bull-wets"
You left out your bongs.
Switched to edibles (got a touch of the Glaucoma) much easier to get through TSA.
So, in addition to being a moral reprobate you are a confessed felon. Yes indeed, Mengele, you are special.
so are you, Hitler.
"Any guilty inkling that someone might mistake you for a prestigious authority, with expert knowledge which deserved attention?"
The irony of you asking someone else that question is hilarious.
"This is about blood, mutilation, and casual death, inflicted fecklessly."
You're totally not biased about guns. Anyone reading that sentence can clearly see that you're interested in legitimate discourse.
Another 2A post, another idiotic diatribe by "Mr. Pro 2A."
Cavanaugh, did you know that while this thread has been up, medical examiners in the Parkland shooting trial have been detailing the injuries inflicted? Limbs shot away. Heads blown apart. The permanent maiming of survivors.
What in your contorted mind makes you suppose that information is untoward in a discussion of the 2A, and the effects it inflicts under present law? What makes you think it would be anti-2A to try to enact laws and policies to limit gun-culture results like those at Parkland? What twisted impulse makes you suppose that the only way to support the 2A is to take an extremist approach, and accept as a price of liberty every horrific result which follows?
Are you capable of putting forth anything other than an appeal to emotion?
How about this: "Blathrop, did you know that while this thread has been up, millions of gun-owners in America have been doing nothing whatsoever unlawful with their firearms? No limbs shot away. No Heads blown apart. No permanent maiming of anyone."
Parkland is not a 'gun-culture' result, you fucking imbecile. Nobody who supports the 2A thinks that shooting school-children is in any way appropriate behavior. That's why we call those perpetrators "criminals." What a wild concept, eh?
Carry on with your ignorance. God knows that nobody around here is going to ever get your brain on the right track.
Cavanaugh, American gun culture exists because too many folks can't stop dreaming about shooting people. That is why, for decades, combat fantasies have been the mother's milk of American gun marketing. That is why extremist supporters of the 2A respond with anger when critics try to recast the purpose of the amendment in terms of hunting, instead of in terms of homicide. That is why semi-auto AR-style rifles outsell purpose-built hunting rifles. That is why semi-auto pistols are concealed carried everywhere, while their owners practice, "situational awareness," to the nth degree.
That impulse—to keep yourself constantly on the alert to blow someone apart—in case some contingency or other might suggest you can get away with it—is morally degenerate. You get to decide if you want to count yourself among that crowd, and live like that. Maybe you have already decided, but why not reconsider?
Is keeping your eyes open when driving, or hiking in bear country, etc, also morally degenerate? Or just when you are buying gas late at night in sketchy neighborhoods?
I guess I disagree. I have driven a million plus miles over 50 plus years without an at fault accident. I think that is because 75K of that was urban commuting on a motorcycle, where the question is generally whether you are being paranoid enough. That head-on-a-swivel approach to driving seems wise to me - indeed, I think you have a duty to your fellow drivers to maintain a high degree of situational awareness behind the wheel.
I've been bumming around bear country for 40 plus years, with lots of bear encounters - a couple of grizzly cubs wandered right by the cabin a couple of weeks ago, maybe 50 feet from us, just the cutest little things. But, again, I keep my head on a swivel. So far, that has prevented any damage to bears or to me.
And I lived in the high crime parts of a city for 30 plus years. We heard gunfire routinely, and crime was endemic. I lost track of how many arrests I saw looking out our windows. Your suggestion that when my wife walked the dog she should go into clueless mode instead of watching her surroundings seems utterly bizarre to me.
While driving, prudent people look out for hazards - potholes, kids chasing balls, and texting drivers. In the mountains, prudent people watch for bears, cougars, rockfall, avalanches and storms. In bad parts of the city, prudent people look out for crooks.
"...in case some contingency or other might suggest you can get away with it..."
Simply put: You're the degenerate one here, by pretending that everyone who owns or carries a firearm is doing so in hopes they get to murder someone and 'get away with it' someday.
You make a lot of disparaging assertions without an iota of evidence. "That is why" you're a piece of shit, and a bald-faced liar when you try to claim that you somehow support the 2A.
If she thinks she needs a gun, by all means I'm glad she can get one.
But unless the stats have changed, 'crime soars' is for a pretty relative sense of soaring.
It's all "relative" "Relatively" "Most" peoples don't die from Cancer, or Car/Airliner Crashes, Ted Bundy didn't kill "Most" of the women he ran into. Jerry Sandusky didn't rape "Most" of the men he "Coached" (not so sure about that one, check with the "Reverend") but when one of the New York Mayors henchmen gets mugged doing advance work https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/new-york-city-eric-adams-crime-aide/2022/07/05/id/1077474/
if everyone's saying you're crazy......
Frank "Relatively" Sane
'Frank "Relatively" Sane'
Yeah, relative to Charles Manson (dead) and Donald Trump (not dead yet).
"if everyone's saying you're crazy" you should pause and consider why. It's possible that you're just a misunderstood genius and not a demented mental defective. Of course, it's not impossible that the moon is made of green cheese.
Own a "few" guns, just like I have a spare tire (in my trunk, in pretty good shape for 60) portable air pump for flats, flashlights, and Insurance, when you need a gun, nothing else will really do.
Frank "Bang!"
"when you need a gun, nothing else will really do"
Just be careful you don't get anything stuck in the barrel of that .410 of yours. Reminds me of the Wisconsin Republican legislator who showed up at the emergency room of Theda Clark Memorial Hospital (Neenah, WI) with a vacuum cleaner hose stuck on his non-legislative member. That was probably in 72 or 73. Hilarity ensued. Just looked, it seems that the vacuum cleaner's boyfriend died in 2018.
,410? Remington 870 Police model, thank you very little
Yeah, I'll bet.
I'll bet you do, because you're stupid, I don't bet, don't like losing money. What's so hard to believe? Remington 870's been around forever, the Police model isn't restricted to the Po-Po, got 2, one with the synthetic stock, one with the old fashioned wood, and a Mossberg 500 13g that'll hold 7 3" magnum rounds. (bought it on orders from Somnolent Joe, he said "Get a Shotgun!!"
Just kidding, got them years ago.
Frank
typo, Mossberg's a 12g of course, but a 13g would be really cool (smaller bore of course) just because of the glamour of "13"
Frank
And Mengele, keep your shotguns cleaned well lubricated. Don't want to have a misadventure accident because of a dry and dirty gun.
"I'll bet you do, because you're stupid, I don't bet"
Have you been hanging out with Hunter Biden?
Speaking of shotguns, here's a tune for you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4n5ObLn78j8
"Hemingway's Shotgun" by Eric Taylor; a truly singular talent who died in early 2020.
Isn't "soaring" by definition relative?
Not in this colloquialism - here it's basically a fancy word to say 'is high,' not 'becomes higher.'
And two quarters of negative GDP doesn't mean a recession!
Pull the other one, it's got bells on.
Stay on subject, please.
Do you think soaring crime doesn't mean high crime?
"Soaring crime" means crime is rising significantly. Static crime numbers can be "high" relative to some supposedly comparable other place(s), but the idiom means markedly increasing crime rates.
I'm done with this semantic argument, but to me, the connotation with soaring is both position and momentum.
The main point is that crime is relatively low compared to just a few decades ago.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, gun ownership (as a percentage of households) is also relatively low compared to just a few decades ago. As the crime rate increases, so does the number of people interested in owning guns for defensive use.
Please consider for a moment whether you have an idiosyncratic understanding of the "crime [rate] soars" idiom. The article here is talking about a change in opinion about gun ownership and bearing. It's not a story about "we always wanted guns, now the law has changed so we can get them" -- it's about "we did not want guns, but something changed and now we do".
The headline implies that the "something changed" was an increase in vioent crime rates. That is borne out by the text: "I don't feel safe anymore," she said. "You can't trust nobody."
Saying that we shouldn't complain about "soaring crime" because the violent crime rate now isn't as bad as it was in 1991 is a little like Joe Biden saying that we shouldn't complain about the economy because we aren't experiencing famine.
Cool analogy.
Now do one about how for the last 30-40 years, violent crime has dropped overall despite gun ownership rising substantially, with the lone exception being the last two years.
How about 'Highest'? Obviously this is selective but crime is out of control some places:
"Killings have been on the rise in Portland for the past few years. From 2019 to 2020, Portland had a sharper rise in killings — an 83% increase — than nearly all major cities. At the time, nationally homicides had increased by nearly 30%, based on FBI data.
Portland wasn’t the only American city to set a new mark for number of killings in a year. Philadelphia, Albuquerque, New Mexico, and Lexington, Kentucky, were among the places that also saw record-high homicides in 2021."
Are homicides and crime at all time highs nationwide?
No, of course not.
But hand waving and saying there is no need for concern ignores a real and growing problem.
With police budgets under scrutiny, it's might be worth remembering that the poilice lie about crime statistics to justify having the armouries and powers of a small beleagured state fighting off a well-funded insurgency.
You claim that police lie about crime statistics. What is the mechanism you believe they use to do that? What is your evidence that they do?
It's because they lie about literally everything. They lie in reports, they lie in statistics, they lie in statements They just got caught lying abut a young woman who died in their custody, claiming she opned the door of a moving car and jumped out, then webcam footage emerged that contradicted this. Or for a more high-profile case of police casually and routinely lying, there's Uvalde.
Police have been accused of lying about crime before, mostly underreporting it by charging lesser offenses to make their stats look better.
But I cited Homicides here, it's pretty hard to inflate homicides, unless you are accusing them of sending out squads to do drive by's to pad the murder rate.
Try to apply a little reasoning to your replies rather than just hand waving.
At the time, nationally homicides had increased by nearly 30%, based on FBI data.
But no, "Blood in the streets."
Although, to be fair, I have always insisted that FBI homicide data are wildly unreliable.
While police may lie about specific things or in specific jurisdictions, aggregate police reporting for crimes tracks closely with US federal and state Crime Victimization Surveys.
Unless you think the population of the US is also part of this false-crime reporting conspiracy, the similar results of police reporting and CVS shows that the police are being accurate with crime reporting.
An 83% increase is unbelievable. Literally.
Unless the N is like 13, there is almost certainly something screwy going on.
29 homicides to 53 is an 83% increase: https://www.koin.com/news/crime/fbi-data-portland-homicides-up-83-from-2019-to-2020/
(Spoiler alert: there were 90 Portland homicides in 2021, shattering a decades-old record. That is what I would call soaring crime.)
So it is a small N issue then.
Come on, man.
It's not just Portland, man: https://abcnews.go.com/US/12-major-us-cities-top-annual-homicide-records/story?id=81466453 (a later Fix News story reported a total of 16 such cities for the whole year, but you are blinkered so you can find out if you'll bother reading it)
And it's not a small N issue. Homicide is rare, it typically doesn't change that much, and tripling to 90 -- in just two years -- is a huge change. Portland's population in 2020 was about 652,000. Its 2021 homicide rate was twice the national average.
How many deaths in one city does it take before you start treating additional murders as a statistical aberration?
*Fox News
*you can find it
*as more than a statistical aberration
Grumble.
I'm not saying it's an aberration, I'm saying 83% without noting the actual change in the per capita rate (which from your numbers above is from 0.00004 0.00013) is hiding some very important perspective.
Claiming that it's a "small N" effect is saying it's a statistical aberration.
In the last 15+ years, there were no years where the homicide count changed by as many homicides as 2019 to 2020, much less 2020 to 2021. The only comparable percent change was for 2013 and 2016, which had anomalously low numbers of homicides -- half as many as 2019. https://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Portland-Oregon.html
Take the CDC's word for it that it's statistically significant:
"Provisional data from CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics indicate that the homicide rate for the United States increased 30 percent from 2019 to 2020, the highest ever recorded in modern history."
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/nchs_press_releases/2021/202110.htm
But I suppose that the link between crime and homicides is "not at all clear when you dig in."
Yeah, the 83% is hiding it's actual magnitude. Like if a community goes from having an average of one thin bean to two saying your food supply has doubled.
That is true, and statistically significant, but also not telling the whole story.
Sarcastro going from 29 homicides to 90 in 2 years after years of stability somehow could be just a statistical aberration, but tell that to the families of the 60 extra people who were killed last year in Portland, or the 30% more than were killed nationwide.
But it certainly tells me a lot, when somehow a modest amount of warming that is well within the range of natural variation is a crises, but a nationwide 30% jump in homicides means nothing.
2019 had enough homicides to be a representative year. Saying that it almost doubled the next year, and had tripled by the year after that, gives a better sense of the dynamic than saying "oh, well, it was only a few dozen extra homicides in a mid-size city".
I get that the left is invested in the idea that Antifa lawlessness and "defund the police" pandering have no real consequences, but at some point it's worth opening your eyes to what is going on there.
My 9:43 post explicitly says it's not an aberration, so I don't know what strawman you've built but try and address my point.
Antifa lawlessness If you're not going to take this seriously, I don't know why you bother. Are you saying Portland's police god defunded?
"Are you saying Portland's police god defunded?"
Yes, it was widely reported.
Additionally, they spent huge amounts of manpower on the riots ... manpower that wasn't available to work on murders, burglaries, etc.
Yes, you claimed it was an aberration until we showed you why that was wrong.
Now you claim that it's "missing context" but you ignore the explanation of why that is wrong too.
And now you have added denialism to your posting, in spite of easily found articles like https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/protests/defunding-portland-police-city-council-budget-15-million-cuts/283-239c5e3a-cfed-4dce-8775-d2c52a9df9aa and https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/portland-refunds-police-by-52-million-as-city-faces-record-homicides/ar-AAQTcO2
Careful, Sarcastr0. You keep talking like that Lathrop will wonder what's wrong with you and why those 53 murder victims are so trivial to you.
Do you know who wasn't made safer by having a gun? Philandro Castille.
There is nothing scarier to a certain subset of Americans (a certain subset that's over-represented in our police forces) then an armed Black person.
"There are too many Hispanic police" is a bold take, even for you.
Who, exactly, is it who wrote, "There are too many Hispanic police."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Philando_Castile may educate you on what he was talking about.
So, who wrote (or said), "There are too many Hispanic police."
Philandro Castille was not made safer by having a gun in his possession. Who, in response to this fact said or wrote, "There are too many Hispanic police." And, why would somebody express that? It makes no fucking sense.
What else could he have been talking about other than Hispanic Police officers:
"There is nothing scarier to a certain subset of Americans (a certain subset that's over-represented in our police forces) then an armed Black person."
"certain subset" is a dog whistle if I've ever heard one (well actually I've never heard a dog whistle, but that's what one would sound like if I could hear it).
The "certain subset" refers to paranoid douchbag police officers no matter race and ethnicity. Among American police, there are way too many paranoid bigoted assholes who find "nothing scarier [...] then an armed Black person."
[citation needed]
The science says you are wrong: https://abcnews.go.com/Health/fatal-police-shootings-race-officer-predictive-civilians-race/story?id=64563567
There is even lab/simulation evidence of bias in favor of Black suspects: https://cas.wsu.edu/news/2016/04/27/this-study-found-race-matters-in-police-shootings-but-the-results-may-surprise-you/ (among other studies from the same lab)
You link to an article which does not agree with your assertion. Did you read the article?
As for the simulation. When you test for behavior in such simulations the results may be skewed because the subjects know they are being watched and they very well may know what behavior is desired by the researchers.
You think that disagrees with me?
What the fuck is wrong with you? Why can't you follow the flow of a simple conversation? Have you been hanging out with Mengele or something?
Disagree. Philandro hasn't been a danger to anyone in a while, he's quite "Safe"
That was a horrible incident. I thought that the cop should have been charged with manslaughter at a minimum and a murder charge would have probably been justified. I'm also ashamed that anyone defended this homicidal cops actions or blamed Castille.
But I think that whoever Castille received his training from (assuming it was required for his CCW) bears part of the blame. You should never, ever, ever say the words "I have a gun" to a cop. The word "gun" is used by some agencies in training as a signal to shoot. There are non threatening ways to notify that you're armed and using them may have resulted in a different outcome. (I'm in no way shape or form blaming Castille. Just pointing out that had he received better training or if the cop had received better training or both had things might have been different.)
The officer was charged with, tried for, and acquitted of, second degree manslaughter (plus two charges of dangerous discharge of a firearm). It was a terrible case, and I don't think the shooting was remotely justified. But it did go through the justice system.
Thank you. I wasn't aware of that.
Just my two cents but I had an interesting conversation with a diverse group about crime in general and gun crime and murder in particular while I was on vacation in Mexico. A very well educated Mexican noted that Orlando had a very high crime rate but a guy in the group from Orlando kinda disputed that. I pointed out that in a place like Orlando (and most big cities) crime is very localized. There are areas in Orlando like where the Orlando guy (we were on a fairly expensive guided tour diving with crocodiles so he was well off) lived that were very safe and unlikely to have a crime problem. On the other hand there are areas in Orlando which are obviously crime ridden and not nearly as safe. In fact most folks know which areas of the town they live in are safe and which to avoid.
Truth be told while I have no objection to firearm ownership or folks carrying firearms my lifestyle is such that I have no need to be armed. On the other hand I have little doubt that the peeps mentioned in the article really have legit fear going outside in their neighborhood and feel the need to go armed.
Speaking of blacks, here is a man auditioning to be the next Volokh Conspirator.
Speaking of blacks? Love to, are any around??
At this white, male blog?
Well your Cell-mate for one,
I understand the case for "concealed carry", but just suppose we required "open carry". And suppose you had been convicted of some violent felony, and were released from prison after several years' reductions to your sentence, and you were looking forward to resuming your career of crime, and as you walked out of the prison door, you saw folks walking by carrying AR-15 and AK-47 type rifles, or wearing handguns "outside their pants" as the song says. I don't mean a couple of folks, but most everybody was heeled. Even Black grandmothers. Would that encourage you to seek a lawful and peaceful post-prison career?
Or not?
Sounds like a great crime opportunity. Getting the drop on grandmothers and stealing their guns. Not every day do you see almost everyone walking around with a $500+ easily salable asset on them.
Presumably every one around said hypothetical grandmother would immediately open up on them.
I suspect that if we were to reach the point where most justice for violent crime became far more immediate that the level of violence would seriously decline.
Currentsitguy — No. No one else will be around.
What makes pro-gun advocates so confident that having a gun on the street gives them even a slight advantage to ward off danger from armed criminals? Do they get that from TV shows? From movies? From novels? From "Guns and Ammo?" What is it? Where is this bizarre mental malfunction coming from?
What influence could so fog the gun-addled mind that it would cease to understand that an armed attacker who targets them personally in a public place will ALWAYS plan to get the drop—and almost always succeed. And when that happens, no matter what you think you can do, every attempt to use your own gun will come at increased risk to you—if you are stupid enough to try it. How did this nation build such an enduring edifice of pro-gun romance on top of such an irrational foundation?
If you walk around oblivious to your surroundings and environment then you may be right. But every defensive gun use class I've taken (and I've taken quite a few) has had a focus on situational awareness. That awareness changes things.
I'll also note that when I have open carried I did so in a level three retention holster. No one is going to be able to just walk up and snatch a gun out of such a holster without considerable time and effort. And that provides an opportunity to use some other defensive measures to defeat said criminal.
Well, Stephen, old chap, having a legally carried handgun in my front pocket saved me from two urban youts who had targeted me for their attentions. I got to go home safe and peaceful that afternoon, instead of my wife IDing my body in the county morgue. I can assure you that she is not, in the least, impressed with your post and lack of actual knowledge about the issue.
Jack Burton — Did they have guns of their own, and get the drop on you? Did your prowess overcome that? Did you shoot them dead? If not, the part about the morgue is just your own highly-unlikely results-oriented fantasy. Loss of property, and maybe trivial physical injury is by far the most likely outcome of a typical mugging.
And of course your presumption about my experience, or your wife's, is nothing but a guess. Nothing about what happened in your one case proves anything.
Since hands and feet are used to kill more people than long guns I wonder why you consider the threat of death trivial?
I came home safe that day. Something you consider virtually impossible. Or apparently desirable since you are so caviler with my health and safety. But it is fascinating that you think two young men actually need "guns" to threaten an elderly, handicapped man. Or that I needed to "shoot them dead" to defend myself. Speaking of living in a fantasy... you pretty much meet that very definition.
This is a common mistake.
Your average violent criminal gets in multiple fights a month. They HAVE to target only the most defenseless, or else they won't live out the year.
If you can just raise the danger of attacking people, even if the odds still favor the attacker, people have to stop being violent criminals, or die.
They might think, wow, we've terrorised the neighbourhood so much they're too scared to walk down the street without a fortune in weaponry on display. Good job!
I wouldn't particularly care what they think so long as the response to their crime wave was instant and permanent.
Unless the crime wave was to steall all your guns?
This is in response to the "they'll just steal your gun" crowd. There are more than a few places where open carry is not uncommon and I haven't heard about any gun stealing crime sprees targeting open carriers. The way the media sensationalizes every little thing that can be used to argue in favor of gun control I'm sure we would have heard if it were happening. Lathrop, Nige, and any others who claim that would happen, Do you have any citations showing that it is widespread? I'd like to know so that I can correct my misunderstanding.
Harvey Mosley — Actually, incidents of lost or stolen guns correlate nationally with state gun prevalence levels. Which is unsurprising, of course.
"Whoosh!" The conversation was about how easy it would be to steal guns from people carrying them openly. Not gun theft in general.
Well, even Inspector "Dirty Hairy" Callahan had his S&W Model 29 44 Magnum ("Most Powerful Handgun in the World" at the time) stolen by "Scorpio" in "Dirty Hairy",
Remember how he got it back? by stabbing "Scorpio" in the Leg with his "Back up" knife (No fancy knife sheaths in 1971, literally "Scotch Taped" to his calf)
Generally anyone who gets his gun stolen, shouldn't be carrying one in the first place.
Frank "You talkin to me? you TALKIN to me?? you TALKIN TO ME!!!!!!!!!!! oh, my fly's open? thanks dude!"
If it is so easy for a bad guy to steal a gun from a good guy who is carrying it, then it is just as easy for the good guy to steal it back from the bad guy, Do this enough times and you've left reality and entered a Bugs Bunny/Elmer Fudd cartoon.
Pro-tip:
If you want to open carry for deterrence fine, but keep a concealed hide-out gun.
And always use a retention holster.
But of course that is also why most people carry concealed where it's an option.
In college, once had a campus cop "frisk" me, cause I looked suspicious, totally missed the Raven 25 auto in my pocket (I know, barely meet the definition of "Gun", but Ravens have sent many a "Dude" to the afterlife over the years (switched to a S&W 37 once I started making some $$(Student loan)
Frank
I’ll take UNPRINCIPLED for $1000 Eugene.
https://nypost.com/2022/07/26/weekend-of-gun-violence-in-chicago-leaves-65-shot-5-fatally/
How many killed in Mogadishu the same weekend? I'm betting less(fewer?)
Frank
Bang-up article to post on a gun control discussion.
Which way do you think that cuts?
It was kind of nice being in a densely packed auditorium in Europe without having to worry about a mass shooter.
That's what the people at the Bataclan theater thought, too.
What is the Bataclan theater?
My, such short memories, but to be fair, easy to lose track of Islamic "Mass Murders" over the years....
The November 2015 Paris attacks were a series of coordinated Islamist terrorist attacks[13][14] that took place on Friday,[15][16] 13 November 2015 in Paris, France, and the city's northern suburb, Saint-Denis.
A day after similar attacks in Beirut, Lebanon, the culprits killed 130 people,[3] including 90 at the Bataclan theatre.
Frank
Looks like Frank has mastered Google
Apparently you haven't
There is treatment available for irrational fear.
There seems something out of wack when we have to wait in long security and customs lines every day to prevent another terrorist attack. But on the other hand it’s ok to have guns flying off the shelves the same times mass shooting are going off all the time.
Why is it wrong to have guns flying odd the shelves?
Well, you know guns are scary.
I'd be scared of flying guns.
Hmm. Gunado? It worked for sharks. We could make millions!
You got a point there: Maybe a TV series like Friday the 13th, only a gun shop? Liberals would find it terrifyingly plausible, they already think guns make innocent people into murderers.
If guns are only sold to good people, how do the bad people also get the guns as well as the good people?
Who ever said that guns are only sold to good people? Buying a gun doesn't, as the left apparently thinks, transform good people in to bad people, and the vast majority of people are good people.
But why would you think you can keep bad people from getting guns in a world where you can't keep them from getting cocaine and methamphetamines?
After how many years of living Shrooms just now realized that bad guys do bad things that are illegal?
Not a great symptom when everyone thinks they need more deadly force available to them than they had yesterday.
Why do you focus on the symptom, and ignore the underlying disease? Worrying about people thinking they need more deadly force, and ignoring why they think that?
You create a world where the police don't protect people, and expect the people to gladly not protect themselves, because the latter has bad implications of some sort?
That is not actually the world though. The police are not standing down this is just more of you not understanding professionalism.
This is just more of your mistaking denial for an actual argument.
You didn’t make an argument, you made a statement and then proceeded to assume it was true.
Your worldview of liberals wrecking the police is not true, even if you feel it is.
"The police are not standing down"
And you know that's bullshit. Stand down orders during riots, local DA's refusing to prosecute whole categories of crime, defunding the police; There's been a huge change in the law enforcement environment in our major cities over the last few years, and it's reflected in crime rates, as well as accelerated retirement and recruiting shortfalls.
This dynamic has citizens convinced they need to defend themselves, because the police either can't, or won't be permitted to, defend them.
https://nypost.com/2022/07/26/weekend-of-gun-violence-in-chicago-leaves-65-shot-5-fatally/
Oh C'mon Man! only 5 were killed!!!!! Mofos can't shoot worth shit!
Frank
Doesn't sound like a polite society to me.
Dogs are rightfully labeled "man's best friend." Yet, somehow, there seems to be multiple dog attacks on people every year. Some even in packs. And some dogs even get rabies. So which is it, Nige, are dogs mans best friend, or not?
Jeez, now I think I need a gun just for protection from Dogs....
and Cats, so much nicer animals, when's the last time you heard of a person killed by a pack of feral Cats???
There’s a reason for this article and it’s the mistaken - and racist - belief that white conservatives and libertarians fear black people legally arming themselves. In reality, there’s nothing we want more. We want all people to be so well armed they cannot possibly be repressed. We want no one’s self defense to be dependent on the government.
Even where Reason's writers don't hold left-wing views, they tend to be culturally left-wing these days. So they're only too happy to believe crazy slanders about the right.
Culturally.
And thus one can find liberals everywhere.
The article is tweaking liberals. This is quite clear, if you read without a chip ion your shoulder.
Will mention the following:
1. As the recent recall of the San Francisco DA and school board members indicates, there is a problem with a fringe element of the Democratic party prioritizing idealistic conceptions of people-category justice over ordinary people’s basic needs (security, education) in a way that results in people’s basic needs being ignored, sometimes treated with outright hostility.
2. As that same recall also illustrates, however, Republicans’ efforts to portray this fringe as representing the entire Democratic party are misplaced. Even in one of the country’s most consistently left-wing cities, left-wing enough to have elected the recalled people in the first place, ordinary Democrats got fed up and said enough is enough, this doesn’t represent us.
I think it would be dishonest to say this fringe represent the entire, or even majority of, the Democratic electorate. The worst you can say there is that there's significant local support for the idea, and the opposition was way too slow in getting organized.
It's much less dishonest to make the same accusation against Democratic officeholders. I think that, where they aren't happily on board with the idea, they were at least afraid to oppose it.
How does that work, that the Democratic office holders don’t reflect their constituents on a regular basis?
Same way it works in the Republican party: They only reflect the constituents who are politically active and in play, not the ones who don't vote, or will vote for them as a spinal reflex.
But ReaderY is talking about voters.
And I'm saying that he's right that the 'people category justice' lunatics are a fringe element within the Democratic party's electorate. They've been a highly energized fringe element, that until very recently got next to no push-back from the sane Democratic voters, so they were highly influential. Perhaps that's starting to change.
But, because they ARE a highly energized element within the party's voting and especially activist base, they DO have a lot of pull with the elected politicians, so their priorities are far less fringe among elected Democrats than among Democratic voters.
So it's going to take an awful lot of push-back to get that ocean liner turned around. The Democratic party is going to be pushing this stuff for a long time to come.
Nah, it's fair to hold the way people vote against them. If they don't like the stuff being held against them? Then they should change how they vote.
The long-term solution -- nearly inevitable -- involves a right to possess a firearm for self-defense in the home coupled with ample safety regulations, including those with respect to firearm possession outside the home (or perhaps business).
Time and the marketplace of ideas will sift this.
This is what results from a soft on crime approach. Since people don't feel same, because the DA isn't prosecuting crimes...they feel the need to take their safety into their own hands.
Here, a kid actually assaults a cop. He's released hours later, without bail needed.
https://nypost.com/2022/07/26/teen-freed-despite-video-of-him-attacking-cops-why-nyc-crime-is-out-of-control/
There are no apparent consequences for violent crime. So, it increases. And people feel the need to protect themselves, because the system won't.
Queenie. Great comment, bruh.
The sole factor that is common to all jurisdictions with low crime rates is public self help.
Well I have to agree, people that don't have any desire to carry a gun shouldn't be forced into it by fear.
But for people that do want to carry they shouldn't be forced to jump through hoops to exercise their civil rights. It really shouldn't be harder or take more time than getting a drivers license, which is also fraught with potential danger.
What should happen to people who violate those reasonable regulations, in your view?
Umm, "Reverend" Sandusky, know it takes awhile for news to get to you at https://www.cor.pa.gov/Facilities/StatePrisons/Pages/Greene.aspx
but the days of "Blue" States only giving CCW's to Celebrities is O-Vuh! Even Mary-land's doling them out like Covid checks, and several of the "Several" states have gone to "Constitutional Carry" i.e. No permit,
might want to remember that if you make parole in 2043,
Frank "Armed and only Dangerous to bad guys"
For all intents they have.
The difference is the immediacy. If a criminal has a gun, then your only real remedy is to have a gun so you can shoot them first. If there's an alien invader, then you have ample time to alert the authorities in most circumstances.
And, by the way, simply enforcing the laws we have now would solve a lot of the problem. Nearly every time someone is in the news for murder it's not their first contact with the criminal justice system, they're a felon out on parole who was also then caught as a felon in possession of a firearm. In principal we could prevent them from committing crimes by locking them in cages, but at the moment the politics are soft on crime. High incarceration leads to low crime leads to soft on crime leads to high crime leads to tough on crime high incarceration leads to low crime and round and round it goes. We are currently somewhere between soft on crime and high crime.
Nobody is saying we.should drop gun laws, violent felons shouldn't have guns.
But that is no good excuse to disarm the rest of us.
No. We should start enforcing the laws we have. Both for guns and for immigration. Go after the law breakers instead of passing new laws designed to turn the law abiding into criminals.
Note, I said crime...not murder
While the handful of "progressive prosecutors" are the apogee (for now) of the criminal empowerment movement, they're only a symptom of a much larger problem. The "right on crime" movement has spent years bamboozling conservatives into passing its "reforms". And of course, COVID saw a massive nationwide effort to reduce prison population both by massively expanding early release to convicted inmates, and by significantly curtailing pretrial detention.
So no, even if the stats are correct, that result isn't the gotcha that you seem to think.
Well, it could be; You'd have to look further into the data, and see how many of the perps had previous encounters with the law where those DAs were in control.
After all, it's not like we have "Escape from NY" style walls around our big cities. Criminals aren't trapped there.
Rhoid Great comment, bruh. Where do you live, Hon? I pray you do not get jacked. Be careful out there, Honey.
I am inclined to believe they should be prosecuted if they violate the law.
What do you think?
"We've spent years letting too many criminals out of jail too soon, and now we're paying the (easily foreseeable) price."
Therefore, " people who violate those reasonable regulations" should get significant custodial sentences.
This is one of those cases where comparative politics doesn't matter much. We have more criminals therefore we have to take more anti-crime measures. There's no great mystery there, island nations have to worry more about rising sea levels, nations that can't grow enough calories to feed themselves have to worry more about importing food, etc. Relative to the criminal infestation, we have a severe underincarceration crisis. Note that it's possible to have an overincarceration and underincarceration crisis at the same time, quite possible we should go easier on drugs and throw away the key on violent offenders.
"Armed and only Dangerous to bad guys"
Filled out a background check form the other day. It seems that notorious mental defectives may be prohibited from owning firearms. I can pass a background check. You Mengele, you craven tw*t, I don't believe you can.
I agree with you.
The District of Columbia, it would seem, does not: their attorney general even went to court to try to force the US Attorney's office to be less aggressive in illegal gun prosecutions. Which I suspect is a likely contributor to the problem these women are trying to solve.
But all the gun lobby and the arms industry has done is created an arms race which is probably partly made-up in order to drive gun sales, but is real enough for the dynamic to keep things escalating and US society flooded with deadly weaponry.
Well, I think going easy on non-violent offences and focusing on rehabilitation rather than punishment for violent offenders would be a better approach, but honestly the crimes most rampant in US society and easiest to get away with and causing the most suffering is white-collar crime. Wage theft alone is endemic.
But feeling obliged to buy guns out of fear is exactly what's happening here, it seems like the wrong sort of thing to celebrate or see as a vindication of anything.
Queenie. Response time of the public at the scene is seconds. I thought the response time of worthless government workers was minutes, It looks like it is 77 minutes, after using the hand sanitizer. These agents of the lawyer profession are worthless garbage because they have been pussified by the lawyer profession.
Queenie. Can you tell the class the fraction of your or of your employer's income that comes from government? It will explain your pro-criminal views.
So you're a non-notorious mental defective??? Congrats! I went the smarter way, getting everything I want from private sales, could be friggin someone really crazy, like Hunter Biden, and nobody would know (or care), funny, haven't heard anything about Hunter's prosecution for lying on his Form 4473...
Frank "Never Convicted"
Wage theft leads to a private cause of action and is vigorously prosecuted by the authorities.
Violent crime is treated with extreme leniency. If you find a murderer, then you will almost never find a stranger to the criminal justice system-- they were already in prison before and got out. In those cases, and they are legion, we tried rehabilitation and it didn't work. The problem was letting them out. Murder happens in prison but it's a controlled environment, it's rare. We have to keep violent criminals in prison for a long time, for serious violent offenses until it's time to carry them out in a pine box.
We can be a bit more lenient with younger offenders because they have a real chance of mending their ways-- so a 15 year old who does a drive by shooting can be eligible for parole by 35 or so.
"I went the smarter way, getting everything I want from private sales, could be friggin someone really crazy, like Hunter Biden, and nobody would know (or care)" And that, Mengele, is why every firearms transfer should go through a licensed dealer.
"haven't heard anything about Hunter's prosecution for lying on his Form 4473"
Hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, lie on that form and almost none of them are prosecuted. Why should Hunter Biden be any different from the vast majority? As for Hunter and proximity to an orange jumpsuit, looks like he's got bigger problems than just either lying or misrepresenting his status as a dope fiend. Maybe he and trump can get together and tell lies while trying to cheat at Monopoly.
I agree background checks are worthless, good on ya!
"Hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, lie on that form and almost none of them are prosecuted. Why should Hunter Biden be any different from the vast majority?"
He shouldn't be any different. But since lying on that form is a felony the vast majority should be prosecuted. The more we go after the actual criminals with guns the less some people will see a "need" to go after the law abiding. Of course going after law abiding gun owners has a miniscule impact on violent crime because of the whole law abiding thing. We would still have some politicians screaming for gun control though. For them it isn't about the guns. It's about the control.
That's simply not true.
'Rehabilitation' is almost never tried in the US criminal justice system. It's practically a business plan - making crininals worse and worse in order to get public funds to keep them incarcerated longer and longer.
An arms race, where gun ownership goes up, conceal carry goes up, but crime in general goes down, year after year, decade after decade?
Seems to be having good effects all around, then. What, exactly, are you objecting to, here?
criminal empowerment movement
Jesus Christ, dude.
You're usually pretty good at using neutral terms to discuss stuff with those who might have other ideas.
Your simply not true is simply not true. The offender committed a crime, got caught, had some time to think about it, had the chance to get out, had the chance to do anything with their lives, and then made the choice to do more crimes. It's in theory possible the government could have done even more for them, but it's always possible to identify a something "more" that could have been done. If serial criminals spend the rest of their life in a cage, and I believe this to be sound public policy, then they have nobody but themselves to blame. "Oh but we didn't try hard enough to rehabilitate them" is blaming us, the victims, rather than the criminal. I oppose victim-blaming.
I would literally be terrified if "rehabilitation" were a practical thing; The implications for the government's capacity for mind control and conditioning would be deeply scary.
I'm sure defunding the police will solve that problem for a lot of them, so what's the worry? Maybe you can declare a few more gun free zones since everyone knows criminals don't ignore the law or look for targets of opportunity.
Those icky places and outcomes you must ignore for Nige and instead focus on the deep blue cities where all of that is reversed so his position, despite the evidence to the contrary, can be deemed true.