Gun Control or Criminal Control. Which is More Effective.

USAFNoDak

New member
Here's an interesting article by George Will regarding crime rates and incarceration rates.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GeorgeWill/2008/06/22/a_surprising_story_on_crime

A Surprising Story on Crime
By George Will


WASHINGTON -- Listening to political talk requires a third ear that hears what is not said. Today's near silence about crime probably is evidence of social improvement. For many reasons, including better policing and more incarceration, Americans feel, and are, safer. The New York Times has not recently repeated such amusing headlines as "Crime Keeps on Falling, But Prisons Keep on Filling" (1997), "Prison Population Growing Although Crime Rate Drops" (1998), "Number in Prison Grows Despite Crime Reduction" (2000) and "More Inmates, Despite Slight Drop in Crime" (2003).

If crime revives as an issue, it will be through liberal complaints about something that has reduced the salience of the issue -- the incarceration rate. And any revival will be awkward for Barack Obama. Liberalism likes victimization narratives and the related assumption that individuals are blank slates on which "society" writes. Hence liberals locate the cause of crime in flawed social conditions that liberalism supposedly can fix.

Last July, Obama said "more young black men languish in prison than attend colleges and universities." Actually, more than twice as many black men 18-24 are in college as there are in jail. Last September he said, "We have a system that locks away too many young, first-time, nonviolent offenders for the better part of their lives." But Heather Mac Donald of the Manhattan Institute, writing in the institute's City Journal, notes that from 1999 to 2004, violent offenders accounted for all of the increase in the prison population. Furthermore, Mac Donald cites data indicating that:

"In the overwhelming majority of cases, prison remains a lifetime achievement award for persistence in criminal offending. Absent recidivism or a violent crime, the criminal-justice system will do everything it can to keep you out of the state or federal slammer."

Obama sees racism in the incarceration rate: "We have certain sentences that are based less on the kind of crime you commit than on what you look like and where you come from." Indeed, in 2006, blacks, who are less than 13 percent of the population, were 37.5 percent of all state and federal prisoners. About one in 33 black men was in prison, compared with one in 79 Hispanic men and one in 205 white men.

But Mac Donald cites studies of charging and sentencing that demonstrate that the reason more blacks are disproportionately in prison, and for longer terms, is not racism but racial differences in patterns of criminal offenses: "In 2005 the black homicide rate was over seven times higher than that of whites and Hispanics combined. ... From 1976 to 2005, blacks committed over 52 percent of all murders." Do police excessively arrest blacks? "The race of criminals reported by crime victims matches arrest data."

As for the charge that the incarceration rate of blacks is substantially explained by more severe federal sentences for crack as opposed to powder-cocaine defendants (only 13 states distinguish between the two substances, and these states have small sentence differentials), Mac Donald says:

"It's going to take a lot more than 5,000 or so (federal) crack defendants a year to account for the 562,000 black prisoners in state and federal facilities at the end of 2006 -- or the 858,000 black prisoners in custody overall, if one includes the population of county and city jails."

James Q. Wilson, America's premier social scientist, notes that "the typical criminal commits from 12 to 16 crimes a year (not counting drug offenses)" and Wilson says that 10 years of scholarly studies "have shown that states that sent a higher fraction of convicts to prison had lower rates of crime, even after controlling for all of the other ways -- poverty, urbanization, and the proportion of young men in the population -- that the states differed. A high risk of punishment reduces crime. Deterrence works." It works especially on behalf of blacks, who are disproportionately the victims of crimes by black men.

A recent report by the Pew Center on the States asserts that America incarcerates too many people, and in the process diverts money from higher education. Wilson notes that the report does not examine whether the slower growth of public spending on higher education than on prisons may be explained by the surge in private support for public universities. And, Wilson dryly adds, the report does not explore "whether society gets as much from universities as it does from prisons." A good question, but not one apt to be studied in academia.
 

TwoXForr

New member
the report does not explore "whether society gets as much from universities as it does from prisons." A good question, but not one apt to be studied in academia.

Now that would be one study I would love to read. If I was working on my Masters it might be something I might even attempt. (Of course on such a small scale it would most likely be dissmissed as anecdotal.)

Sorry the inner Criminologist geek came out for minute. :D
 

USAFNoDak

New member
Gun control and criminal control are not mutually exclusive, of course. It takes both, everybody knows that.

I don't agree 100% with this. For example, which is going to have a larger impact on reducing violent crimes?

1. locking up more violent criminals (criminal control)

2. making law abiding citizens register our guns (gun control)

With those two items being the choice, gun control and criminal control are mutually exclusive. One has no effect on the other. As a matter of fact, the USSC has already ruled that the government cannot force convicted felons to register a gun because to do so would be self incrimination. It would be a forced admission that they have committed another felony by possessing a gun. That is a violation of the 5th amendment.

Now, to be fair, I agree that if you have a law that says a convicted felon cannot own a firearm, (gun control), and you catch such a person with a firearm, they should go to prison (criminal control). In this case they are not mutually exclusive.
 

Bond007

New member
I'd agree that gun control is more effective than criminal control.

Gun control forces law abiding citizens to abide - controlling guns.

Criminal control forces criminals to abide - which they are incapable of doing by virtue of being criminals.

Gun control, however, is equally as ineffective as criminal control in controlling criminals and therefore should not be attempted to be substituted for criminal control in situations in which criminal control has failed.

Just my thoughts.
 

USAFNoDak

New member
I'd agree that gun control is more effective than criminal control.

Gun control forces law abiding citizens to abide - controlling guns.

Criminal control forces criminals to abide - which they are incapable of doing by virtue of being criminals.

Gun control, however, is equally as ineffective as criminal control in controlling criminals and therefore should not be attempted to be substituted for criminal control in situations in which criminal control has failed.

Just my thoughts.

Those are valid points. However, in the context of reducing violent crimes, criminal control (incarceration) is more effective than gun control, IMHO.
 

Yellowfin

New member
There is no form of restricting firearms from law abiding citizens that is palatable or effective in preventing crime, and attempts to do so are in fact criminal and those responsible for trying should be treated as criminals and dealt with accordingly.
 

USAFNoDak

New member
But those two items aren't the choice. Everyone is for some criminal control and some gun control.


Including me. However, gun control, when specifically applied to law abiding folks, such as registration, is as useful as breasts on a boar when it comes to reducing violent crimes. It has no effect on the criminal. But, when you lock up violent criminals for longer periods of time and take a no nonsense approach to controlling violent criminals, as the original article by George Will points out, there is a non-neglible affect on reducing crime rates.

So, in this context, criminal control is more effective than gun control. I never said you had to have one or the other. If we want to reduce violent crimes, we should focus more on controlling violent criminals than we should on controlling how law abiding citizens purchase, use and store their firearms.
 
Last edited:

Caeser2001

New member
we need to go back to the old skool prison system where the prison system was feared and prisoners did hard labor the most if not all of their sentence. making them fully functional. executing the lifelong violent ones that are beyond changing
 
Last edited:

wpcexpert

New member
Another thought...Wishful thinking

I feel the combination of both Criminal Control and Gun Control is the only way to effectively deter violent crimes.

Gun Control--Require that every law abiding, non felon, and non mentally prohibited person to own a firearm.

Criminal Control--Prosecute, to the fullest extent of the law, all firearm related crimes. Clean out all the Illegals out of the prison system. That would free up approx 300,000 spots for newcomers.

That would be the way to do it.
 

USAFNoDak

New member
wpcexpert posted:

Another thought...Wishful thinking

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I feel the combination of both Criminal Control and Gun Control is the only way to effectively deter violent crimes.

Gun Control--Require that every law abiding, non felon, and non mentally prohibited person to own a firearm.

Criminal Control--Prosecute, to the fullest extent of the law, all firearm related crimes. Clean out all the Illegals out of the prison system. That would free up approx 300,000 spots for newcomers.

That would be the way to do it.

When you refer to gun control in that light, I can do nothing but agree with you. I also like to idea of getting rid of all of the illegals in our prison system. If their countries won't take them back, we drop them via parachute at night, as far from our border as their national boundaries lie. I'd give them one juice packet and a slim jim to tide them over until they can find their own sustinence. We've' paid enough for them already. I'd also leave them in their bright orange "jumpsuit" so they can easily be spotted, once they've landed.
 

wpcexpert

New member
I don't understand why we keep them. What exactly are we doing. Prison is not only a punishment but a rehabilition system. How exactly is that effective? That is a perfect example of failed criminal control. Yes they are in prison, but what happens when they are let out? Do they get to stay here? Why pay to keep someone, who shouldn't be here, when you don't plan to rehabilitate?
 

Yellowfin

New member
The jailing rather than deportation of illegals has me stumped as well. Exactly what did we, the taxpayers, do to deserve being punished by paying for them? Prisons by law should be forced to employ all inmates to profitable industry to make them pay for themselves--they should in fact make a profit for the state.
 

crashm1

New member
But those two items aren't the choice. Everyone is for some criminal control and some gun control.


I'm for lots of criminal control and using both hands to control my guns. Not a real big fan of any other form of gun control. The founding fathers wrote "shall not be infringed", they avoided saying, shall mostly not be infringed or only be infringed a little bit.
 

TwoXForr

New member
Crashm1, you are for some sort of gun control, you dont want the mentally ill, even if they are on medication to have guns. Or for a ten year old to be able to purchase a Mack 10.

You are for some sort of Gun Control.

Just like the old joke, you go up to a woman and say "would you sleep with me for 10 million dollars, she says sure. Would you sleep with me for 10 dollars, She respondeds no what do you think I am a prostitute. Which you respond, I thought we already established that now we are just discussing price.
 

MedicineBow

New member
Crashm1, you are for some sort of gun control, you dont want the mentally ill, even if they are on medication to have guns. Or for a ten year old to be able to purchase a Mack 10.

Exactly.

Where does it say in the Second Amendment that only adults, or non-felons, or citizens can possess, purchase or sell guns?

Answer: it doesn't.
 

B.N.Real

New member
Crminals shot dead by law abiding citizens unwilling to be victims of crime is criminal control.

So I vote arm everybody,mandate training with firearms for everyone to take away the gee whiz that's neato factor and jail the criminals and make them work for their food.

You no workie-you no eatee.
 

shortwave

New member
Don`t believe in gun-control. Doesn`t lower violent crimes. Don`t believe in jailing criminals and having them sit in cell twenty-four-seven without doing anything to earn thier keep. We can thank the ACLU for laws allowing that. Put em back on chaingangs and get some of the road work done that my tax dollars are paying for. I`m paying to feed em in prison "I want my monies worth".
 
Top