Two interesting conversations with 'antis' today (with positive outcomes)


PDA






atek3
May 9, 2004, 05:42 AM
I was at a party and the theme was 'dead warriors', so I borrowed a friends period leather holster, cowboy had, and replica SAA. Considering that this is berkeley, and people know me as the 'gun nut', I got a lot of "is that a real gun".
"No, its a replica."
"Can I handle it?"
"Sure, just respect it like a real gun, don't point it at people."
"Okay, but why?"
"What if I was lying, and it was a real, loaded gun and you shot someone."
"Ohhhh, good point." Usually went the conversation. I got very few, ewww, icky guns.

Later I was chatting with a female friend who offhandedly mentioned she was "a pretty good shot, better than my mother who was in the armed services, but I haven't shot in years, because I'm afraid of guns."
"Why are you afraid of them?" I replied.
"I think I've psychoanalyzed myself and figured it out. I used to go shooting with my mother and her friend, who she was cheating on my father with. Then after my parents got a divorce my mother abused my brother and I."
"Whoa, I think I should take you to the range."
"I just might do that, because I trust you."
So, I'm going to take her and her boyfriend shooting. Right on.
(it really warms my heart to be perceived as a "good gun nut".)

Conversation two, I had a good chat with a well meaning, smart anti (as opposed to a dumb evil one like tom diaz). He conceeds that gun laws are ineffective and I explained why the '94 AWB is a joke. He laughed out loud about the "when was the last time you heard of a drive by bayonetting?" His main beef was the perception that the NRA is out of touch with the day to day going ons of compton, east oakland, and other places like that. Teaching gun safety to Mr. and Mrs. responsible gun owner (a catagory he lumps me under) is all well and good, but the people in the ghettos commiting crimes don't take gun safety classes. They use their pistols for nefarious ends. So he asked me what steps I would take to lower the murder rate in such places. We both agreed legalizing drugs would be a good first step, as the violent drug trade/gang violence is one of the main 'causes' of the high murder rate. Other than that we were both pretty baffled. Laws won't do jack, as there are enough handguns on the black market to continue to have gang warfare for a hundred years after they were completely banned. You can't really "legislate" away evil people. I guess you have to go do the dreaded "societal" causes of violence, aka why people turn to crime.

What do you guys and gals think? How would you lower the murder rate in places like compton if you were emperor?

atek3

If you enjoyed reading about "Two interesting conversations with 'antis' today (with positive outcomes)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
stealthmode
May 9, 2004, 06:42 AM
i dont think drugs should be legal, that would be stupid. there are those i assume like you that probably think that by legalizing drugs that it would become cheaper and there would be less crime, but as the price gets cheaper then the use would go up, supply and demand. it would also bring in more users that did not use before creating more addicts or making occasional users into addicts. now you have an epidemic of drug addicts running around that cant do anything but try to get their next fix and will do anything to get it, so by legalizing i would think that there would be more social costs and an increase in crime in the long run.

what drugs should be legalized. if you are talking about heroin, speed, crack and hard stuff like that then it would be stupid. i dont see a problem with pot, but then if it were legalized i would not become a user just because it was legalized. are you a pot head is that why you want it legalized?

now i will get back to your main topic about gun crime in inner cities.

my opinion is if these people would stop having babies, focus them on education, teach them right from wrong, be responsible parents, then that would help. if more carry concealed permits were in the hands of responsible people that live in those areas that might put the fear into these gang bangers that are commiting crime against the good honest hardworking people that are too unfortunate that they have to live in those conditions.

as for you last question, if i were emperor then i would round the criminals up and humainly have them executed like the animals they are.

crewchief
May 9, 2004, 06:50 AM
You have a point when it comes to the legalization of drugs, but I believe that it should be limited to marijuana and not stuff like coke, crack, meth, lsd, heroin and such. I feel though that the way to get in these criminals minds is not necessarily more police or anything but rather harsher punishment, like almost as harsh as an eye for an eye. Also get rid of parole as I feel their should be no time off for good behavior and stop it with these stupid in my mind life sentences. If your going to condemn a man to life in prison, which is suppose to be for rehabilitation and not long term storage, you might as well give him death. I mean you want to store him for life just so he can die all the while sucking up Tax dollars that can be used for such things as schools, poverty, job skills and placement and so on. Another thing is quite dilly daling around waiting to execute someone and do it. Now granted the appeals system can be good but also it is abused way to much in order to get enough time and the ability to find loopholes that the felon can escape through. Ya I know your all innocent:rolleyes: and I fart gold dust. If a criminal is found guilty of a crime that warrants the death penalty and they confess to the crime to begin with then as soon as he is sentenced take him in the back of the court house and put one in the head so we don't even have to waste time or the gas to take him to jail. Maybe public forms of punishment would be good also to show the rest what will happen so don't even consider it. My biggest thing though is how lite rapist and child molesters get off. A rapist will get sentenced to 7 years and maybe serve 3 then he gets out and does it again and they wonder why. Another thing to consider is the prison system and how they need to tighten things up inside those walls. Quit letting these guys get away with their thuggish ways while their in prison. Well those are just a few things for starters.

artherd
May 9, 2004, 07:17 AM
Path to reduce crime:

1) Reduce societal pressures that end up giving some little choice or little to loose. Bring more oppertunity to reward work with success. It's already pretty good here, but it could always get better.

2) LOCK UP AND THROW AWAY THE KEY on those who turn to violence anyway despite living in one of the best damned countries in the world.

Note that both of the above are basically another word for "Emphasize, heavily, Personal Responsability in Society."

Look at Puff Daddy's "I AM THE AMERICAN DREAM" shirt. Anyone can make it here, anyone. You can start with $0.37 in your pocket, and be speaking broken english as a third-language. You can retire 10 years later a Billionare.

Tom Bri
May 9, 2004, 10:46 AM
You could reduce crime by greatly increasing the number of guns in that area. Even in the worst town only a small percentage of people are violent criminals. Give everyone else more power to protect themselves and soon the violent ones are driven out, wise up, or become dead. Everyone should have a gun.

As a stop-gap measure, legalising drugs would go a long way. You would have to legalise all drugs everywhere though, or you just move the problem around. Of course, anyone who commits a crime while under the influence would have to be put away.

buy guns
May 9, 2004, 11:04 AM
it would also bring in more users that did not use before creating more addicts or making occasional users into addicts.

if it were legalized i would not become a user just because it was legalized.[

exactly. if people are going to do drugs then they will do it. do you think they care if its against the law? i think legalizing weed would be a good first step since that is the easiest drug to profit from.


want to reduce crime in compton? build a wall around the city and let them kill each other off. within a year there will be nobody left to commit crimes.

Linux&Gun Guy
May 9, 2004, 11:07 AM
what drugs should be legalized. if you are talking about heroin, speed, crack and hard stuff like that then it would be stupid. i dont see a problem with pot, but then if it were legalized i would not become a user just because it was legalized. are you a pot head is that why you want it legalized?

I think its interesting that newbies are quick to condem drug legalization. I think it may be because they have just come here and are strong republicans. After awhile they understand how the 2 parties are really the same. Interesting that you try a personal attack too.



You have a point when it comes to the legalization of drugs, but I believe that it should be limited to marijuana and not stuff like coke, crack, meth, lsd, heroin and such.

LSD is not addictive or harmfull as long as you have a spotter.

atek3
May 9, 2004, 01:55 PM
silly me i sleep and miss the debate, Paging Mr. wolfman97. Paging Mr. wolfman97. :)

Hey moderators, ignore the "personal attack" I'm enjoying this thread too much to be closed. :)

atek3

stealthmode
May 9, 2004, 05:19 PM
Linux&Gun Guy you said i did a personal attack, you are wrong. i inquired if he is a pot head and to see if that is why he would like to personally see marijuana legalized.

Warren
May 9, 2004, 05:41 PM
buy guns opined:

want to reduce crime in compton? build a wall around the city and let them kill each other off. within a year there will be nobody left to commit crimes.

I used to work in Compton, there are a lot of good people there. Every time I hear this wall it off idea, even as a joke, it steams me up. :fire:

Warren
May 9, 2004, 05:46 PM
Linux&Gun Guy you said i did a personal attack, you are wrong. i inquired if he is a pot head and to see if that is why he would like to personally see marijuana legalized.

I want to see it, and all drugs legalized, because I am a freedom-head. I am opposed to the police state this country has become in the drive to prevent people from intoxicating themselves with the plant extract of their choice.


I also support the rights of individuals to own fully automatic, pistol gripped, bayonet lugged black rifles with 30 round mags.

Yeah, I know society would collapse if people had that much freedom. ;)

4v50 Gary
May 9, 2004, 05:50 PM
How to lower the murder rates. Why, "Round up the usual suspects" of course.

More seriously, legalize drugs. Take away their market and give it to Pzifer or other drug manufacturers. Make it cheap and over the counter when we do it though.

Second, we know who the baddies are. Remove them and you reduce crime. Is that anything like rounding up the usual suspects?;)

Standing Wolf
May 9, 2004, 05:59 PM
You can't really "legislate" away evil people. I guess you have to go do the dreaded "societal" causes of violence, aka why people turn to crime.

Nope. There's already a surfeit of legislation on the books to deal with evil people. All that's needed is to enforce the laws already on the books.

Legalizing drugs would be a good thing. Abolishing welfare would be a better thing. Meting out justice to criminals would be the single best thing we could do—which probably explains why we haven't done it.

atek3
May 9, 2004, 06:01 PM
i inquired if he is a pot head and to see if that is why he would like to personally see marijuana legalized.


i inquired if he is a cop killer and to see if that is why he would like to personally see assault rifles with body armor piercing bullets legalized.


Really strong argument stealthmode, really strong. Goodness, like 70% of this board is for legalizing heroin, by your arguement this board must be a bunch of dope fiends.

atek3

TarpleyG
May 9, 2004, 06:14 PM
i dont think drugs should be legal, that would be stupid. there are those i assume like you that probably think that by legalizing drugs that it would become cheaper and there would be less crime, but as the price gets cheaper then the use would go up, supply and demand. it would also bring in more users that did not use before creating more addicts or making occasional users into addicts. now you have an epidemic of drug addicts running around that cant do anything but try to get their next fix and will do anything to get it, so by legalizing i would think that there would be more social costs and an increase in crime in the long run.
Maybe. But that would quickly correct itself. Ever hear of 'survival of the fittest?' Don't allow the guvmint to offer any assisitance to these folks when they use drugs. The users need to take responsibility of themselves. The true die-hard addicts will just die off like the cancer they really are. We are already footing the bill for some of those folks now.

GT

Kim
May 9, 2004, 06:15 PM
I have a problem with drug legalization. I really do not care if someone drinks themselves to death or shoots up heroin and kills themselves or decides they want to end their life with carbon monoxide or a bullet. However, as long as we have the welfare state and we all have to pay taxes to support the children and family these irresponsible people leave behind, I am aganist legalization. Get rid of the welfare state and I will be all for it. You can not have a libertarian utopia with a welfare state. I am a physician I I still do not buy into the idea the alcholism is a disease. Just wait and all "so called addictions "will be a disease and all people with these problem will get a disability check.( Can't help it I'm fat McDonalds made me do it) Stop the insanity------first!!!!! :(

Warren
May 9, 2004, 06:32 PM
Dr. Kim I'm with you on that.

In order I would like to see the end of all gun laws, the end of the welfare state (for business and indivduals) followed by the end of the drug war.

atek3
May 9, 2004, 06:40 PM
Geez, I shouldn't have mentioned legalization in the first place, that was SO tangential to the conversation that to see this thread turn into
this thread:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27564&highlight=legalization
is just silly.

Seriously, hash out a drug war debate in that thread. This one is about murder rates and how to reduce them.

atek3

LiquidTension
May 9, 2004, 06:54 PM
You wanna know what would really deter crime? A sentencing lottery. Whenever someone is convicted of a crime, their sentence is pulled randomly. While it is true that this won't stop violent crime (there really is no way to stop that, because the vast majority of violent crimes against people are emotive and therefore lacking rational thought), other, lesser forms of crime would drop off drastically. Think about it - do you think that a car thief would think twice about stealing someone's car if he knew that he just might get life in prison or the death sentence? You're dang right he would.

Naturally this can never happen in this country because of the various due process violations, not to mention someone would start whining about the 8th Amendment cruel and unusual punishment stuff. Would it work? I believe so.

As for inner city gang problems...yeah, you could look at the societal causes for crime (routine activities theory, strain theory, social conflict theory, social control theory, dozens more), but even if you could fix all of society's problems (impossible), you would still have violent crime. The drug trade is violent for the same reason that the prohibition era was violent - when you're already breaking a couple of laws to get your product out, what's one more? That said, marijuana should be legalized because it does not cause violent emotional problems. Cocaine and it's derivatives, opium and it's derivatives, methamphetamines - all of these cause drastic behavioral changes, not to mention the accompanying addiction to the drug. Much research shows that treatment is far better than punishment for drug users. So treat drug users . Punish severely the drug dealers . Decriminalizing marijuana would break the back of many drug cartels because of the very simple concept of profit. The reason that drugs are so expensive is BECAUSE they're illegal. Their expense does not keep people from buying drugs, but it does help the cartels make mucho dinero. How much would a bag of weed cost if any pot head could go into his back yard or closet and pick a bud to smoke instead of going to some shady dealer that has to protect his shipments coming in from Mexico with deadly force?

Anyway, the gist of all this is to punish hashly the people that deserve it, rehabilitate (treat) people that need it, and leave everyone else the hell alone.

You may wonder where the money for this will come from. Well, since the DEA will not have the excuse of busting marijuana dealers anymore, their budget can be cut by oh, 50% or so. They can sell off their machine guns to me at a discounted price to help get some more money. The helicopters they use to look for weed...sold. Along with the thermal equipment they use to spy on people's houses (you really think they care that SCOTUS said evidence gathered that way is not admissible in court? ha!). Control and tax marijuana just like alcohol. The possibilities are endless.

I know this will anger several people on here, but it's my idea and I like it. Declare open season on any gang member seen committing a violent act or distributing drugs (other than pot). Once again, we run into due process issues...but a guy can dream.....

stealthmode
May 9, 2004, 06:55 PM
atek3


for those who dont read the whole thread that is not my second quote but atecs way of making me see fault with my so called accusatory statement.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i inquired if he is a pot head and to see if that is why he would like to personally see marijuana legalized.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

i inquired if he is a cop killer and to see if that is why he would like to personally see assault rifles with body armor piercing bullets legalized.

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



Really strong argument stealthmode, really strong. Goodness, like 70% of this board is for legalizing heroin, by your arguement this board must be a bunch of dope fiends.

atek3

atek3
May 9, 2004, 06:59 PM
Duh.

Mark13
May 9, 2004, 07:19 PM
Criminalizing drugs is a waste of money, resources and people. Have you ever heard of a drug user who couldn't get drugs? Have you ever heard of a criminal who couldn't get a gun?

I think drugs are terrible. They contribute to the destruction of lives, and ruin childrens futures. But what has our "drug war" done to stop this except throw billions down the toilet?

The only postive aspect of drug criminalization is that it keeps drug use non-public, and allows the govt to try to help some of the people they catch.

Of course the flip side of this is higher crime to pay the artificially elevated drug prices, corrupted public officials, and bloody gang warfare over turf.

I bought the "just say no" line of the 80's because I am a Republican, but our current drug policy is absurd. We need to make a change. I'm not advocating free narcotics for everyone, just that we could be doing this better.

atek3
May 9, 2004, 07:23 PM
moderators, can you move this thread to legal, political, and inane.

Thanks,
atek3

Bog
May 9, 2004, 07:38 PM
Unfortunately, neither the US or the UK is set up, in any measure, to do anything but escalate violent crimes.

Violent crimes, to my mind, can be roughly divided into two categories:

Crimes of Fear.

Crimes of Acquisition.

Part of the time, a person will have force insitgated upon them because the force-using party is scared of the other person.

Part of the time, a person will have force instigated upon them because they're in the way of something someone else wants.

There are crimes of passion which turn violent - yes. There are crimes of hate which turn violent - yes.

But the above two are the Major Problems, to my mind. Fear, in this case, is a societal thing. We're taught to fear $GROUP for whatever reason. This leads to violence, to Make the Bad Man Go 'Way.

Acquisitive Violence is employed because the violator thinks they can get away with it, or their goal is so short-term that they don't bother thinking about what happens next.

Thing is... how do you make people think? I honestly don't know. I don't know when I started becoming a Thinking Person rather than a Reacting Person. I couldn't describe the process.

When I stopped Fearing people? Well, I still do, a bit. But I also learned that, by and large, people are just as frightened as I am. I'm only 30, I'm not smart about these things - but a little understand of other people's nature, coupled with the facility, in your hand, to equal any force that may be levied upon you... it's a place to start.

atek3
May 9, 2004, 07:49 PM
I wonder what percentage of urban homicide are "criminal on criminal" and what percentage are "criminal on non-criminal" any ideas?

atek3

DMK
May 9, 2004, 10:29 PM
What do you guys and gals think? How would you lower the murder rate in places like compton if you were emperor? People commit any crime because they think they can get away with it. Even the most hardened criminal will not commit murder if they know without a shadow of a doubt that they will be caught shortly and they will be executed for their crime.

Now the problem becomes, how to we change the perception that criminals will get away with crime. There's a couple problems:

a) We have a legal system that requires proof of crime and proof that the accused was the one that commited it. Not much we can or should want to change here. We don't want innocent citizens to be arrested and convicted for crimes that they didn't commit due to hearsay and circumstantial evidence. However, citizens do need to take a more active part in both reporting crimes and in performing their civic duties (I have no patience for people who wish to shirk jury duty without any real hardship).

b) The law enforcement, court and prison systems are overburdened with minutia. Ah, now here is where we need to take a cold hard look and figure out what we are really trying to accomplish with our legal system. We have out of control legislation in this country. There are too many felonies, too many federal crimes. We have too many tax related, minor drug related (remember "zero tolerance"?) and other non-violent or white collar crimes clogging up our courts. Too many serious crimes go unsolved due to lack of law enforcement manpower. Too many serious cases are plea bargained for the same reason. Too many dangerous criminals are allowed to walk with short prison times because the prisons are overcrowded.

c) The American public is not encouraged or even expected to take any serious responsibility for their own personal security or for the security of their community. I'll not comment on this last part. What do you all think the problem is here and how can America fix it?

WingZero
May 10, 2004, 05:49 AM
If legalizing drugs is a good idea, why did a left wing socialist country like Sweden recriminalize drugs after 30 years of complete legalization and social health care / treatment for users?

And why are more countries like Australia going to Sweden for help on how to control their countries drug problems after years of decriminalization and lax views and catagorizing of drugs?

You want to get high?.... move to Canada.

(P.S. I used to do drugs, and now I completely hate them and those that use them. Why, cause I know from personal experience.)

It seems very scarry to me that so many people on these boards are for the legalization of drugs.

Jim March
May 10, 2004, 01:29 PM
Mixing free socialized medicine with drugs might be a bad idea, sure.

Socialized medicine is a bad idea regardless of course...

Jay Kominek
May 10, 2004, 02:05 PM
If legalizing drugs is a good idea, why did a left wing socialist country like Sweden recriminalize drugs after 30 years of complete legalization and social health care / treatment for users?
Because socialized health care is a bad idea, but it is easier to blame drugs than socialism. (In those countries.)
I'm surprised those countries don't ban activities like smoking cigars/cigarettes, sky diving, riding motorcycles, fast food, and the various 'extreme' sports, as well.

Vern Humphrey
May 10, 2004, 02:17 PM
Quote:
-------------------------------------------------
Other than that we were both pretty baffled. Laws won't do jack, as there are enough handguns on the black market to continue to have gang warfare for a hundred years after they were completely banned.
---------------------------------------------------

You want answers? Here they are:

1. If the government can't protect honest citizens, for heaven's sake, it shouldn't prevent them from defending themselves. There are unimpeachable studies (like that by John Lott) that show liberalized concealed carry laws reduce violent crime.

2. Do preventive drug programs. I find most of these (after school activites that keep kids off the streets and provide good role models) are run by churches -- and financed by their meagre collection plates. Capitalize on this -- support letting them get grants and contracts to do the effective work -- and they are almost the ONLY effective workers in the field.

3. Provide every child with a first-quality, world-class education. The disparity in education between schools in poor districts and those in affluent districts is THE civil rights issue of the 21st Century.

4. Create a system of incentives and reduced taxes (among other things) to attract businesses to economically-deprived areas AND to help existing businesses grow and prosper.

I'd be glad to correspond pirvately on this -- I think more detail would bore people here.

Vernon Humphrey
Republican for Congress
First District of Arkansas

c-bag
May 10, 2004, 04:58 PM
- my two cents

1- drug laws and gun laws are similar, if not the same. both stem from misguided attempts to cure the disease (crime and poverty) by treating the symptoms (violence and addiction)

2- personal responsibility should be stressed above all in our courts and our schools. not saying legitimate excuses don't exist, but the burden of proof needs to be stronger.

3- all this talk of:

want to reduce crime in compton? build a wall around the city and let THEM kill each other off.

to me smacks of fascism or at least callousness and does all of us on this forum a diservice by reinforcing the stereotype of gunowners as bigoted thugs and selfish brutes.

4- gun laws and drug laws are the same in that they deprive the decent majority of measurable freedom in the interest of a vauge and undefinable "public good"

shep854
May 10, 2004, 05:18 PM
Reduce crime in inner cities? LET THE HONEST PEOPLE (and there are a lot of them in those areas) ARM THEMSELVES. Sure, there will be a surge in violence, as the Good Guys start shooting back, but peace will quickly prevail as Bad Guys die or run.

One way to do this is to remove the "junk gun" or "Saturday Night Special" bans, so that affordable guns are available to the less well-off.

Frohickey
May 10, 2004, 05:48 PM
What do you guys and gals think? How would you lower the murder rate in places like compton if you were emperor?

Simple.

I would give active and retired police officers a $1000/month bonus if they would change residency and maintain a home in Compton. :D :D :D

Although, that is pretty much the same as handing out CCW licenses to people there.

atek3
May 10, 2004, 06:47 PM
4. Create a system of incentives and reduced taxes (among other things) to attract businesses to economically-deprived areas AND to help existing businesses grow and prosper.

That idea already exists federally, at the state, and local level here in california. Still, few people relocate there because a) the crime is high, b) inner cities are among the worst places to do business from a regulatory aspect. c) the existing pool of job applicants is highly sub par. I mean why set up in compton paying 5 dollars an hour for unskilled labor, when you can find VERY motivated workers in china for a fraction of the price.
If people want businesses to move to compton the workers there have to PROVE they are worth the premium.

atek3

iapetus
May 10, 2004, 07:00 PM
Mark13

The only postive aspect of drug criminalization is that it keeps drug use non-public, and allows the govt to try to help some of the people they catch.


The government could still help addicts if drugs were legal. I'm sure there are many addicts whou want to quit, but are afraid of the legal consequences of admitting to being criminals. (And there would be more money available for the health service, if you were a) taxing drug sales, and b) not enforcing drug laws).

(That said, I'm not - yet - 100% convinced all drugs should be legalised. Probably just about 98% :) )


LiquidTension You wanna know what would really deter crime? A sentencing lottery. ... Think about it - do you think that a car thief would think twice about stealing someone's car if he knew that he just might get life in prison or the death sentence? You're dang right he would.

"You may as well be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb".

If you can get life (or death) for petty crimes, why not commit the big crimes that get you more money?

I would say though (in the UK - is it like this in the US as well?) that punishments for first-time convictions need increasing. Almost always being lenient for "first-time offenders" (more accurately, "first-time found out offenders") means that would-be criminals can think "I can do this crime, and it won't matter if I'm caught". If they knew that commiting crimes will result in punishment if caught (better still, when), they'd be less likely (I expect) to start in the first place.

Dex Sinister
May 10, 2004, 07:59 PM
What do you guys and gals think? How would you lower the murder rate in places like Compton if you were emperor?

Personally, I've always liked the ideas presented in Creating Defensible Space. (http://www.huduser.org/publications/pubasst/defensib.htmls) [You can D/L the entire book in PDF format there.]

This was the brainchild of architect Oscar Newman (http://www.defensiblespace.com/start.htm) who reasoned that the open grid-street design of cities such as Compton:

http://home.pacbell.net/ajoule/compton2.jpg

encouraged wide-ranging crime, and an inability for residents to form a community that was defensibly "theirs" such that they could reduce crime by taking back control over their neighborhoods.

It's not without examples of badly designed implementations, such as Bridgeport, CT and Sepulveda, California, where the cities simply lobbed concrete Jersey Walls at the problem, and later took them down because they were incredibly ugly and unsightly and in Sepulveda because the local drug gangs used the maze of blocked streets to evade police and control their turf on foot.

It's kind of like water-tight doors in a ship -- it tends to inhibit crime from spreading randomly, and allows concentrated action where the problem is. Not that this is much consolation if you happen to be inside the compartment that is filling up with water. :( The question of how you can root out the crime in a neighborhood that is already controlled by gangs is a thorny one, admittedly.

Combined with drug legalization [and that would be the "Prohibition didn't work 70 years ago and caused the same problems as the drug 'war' has, so why, if we abolished alcohol Prohibition, are we hanging onto drug Prohibition like its any different," argument, not the " 'Cause I like drugs" argument, in case someone was wondering] and arming the law abiding, one would think that the problem would end in short order.

Even in Compton, [or Baltimore, MD which I grew up outside of,] the problem is not really "the city" itself - generally about 80% of the neighborhoods in even high crime cities have stats similar to most "low crime" areas, with the other 20% of the neighborhoods with stats so high that they make the entire city appear dangerous.

Dex http://home.pacbell.net/ajoule/firedevil_smiley.gif

atek3
May 10, 2004, 08:26 PM
Dex, for another interesting take on more liveable citys, read "the voluntary city" edited by Alexander Tabarrok published by the independent institute. They argue for privatization.

atek3

Dex Sinister
May 10, 2004, 08:30 PM
privatization

That would, of course, take care of the problem.

Link to the summary here: The Voluntary City (http://www.independent.org/tii/content/briefs/b_tvc.html)

Dex http://home.pacbell.net/ajoule/firedevil_smiley.gif

Vern Humphrey
May 11, 2004, 10:19 AM
Quote:
---------------------------------------------------
Reduce crime in inner cities? LET THE HONEST PEOPLE (and there are a lot of them in those areas) ARM THEMSELVES. Sure, there will be a surge in violence, as the Good Guys start shooting back,
----------------------------------------------------

More than two-thirds of the states have laws allowing honest people to arm themselves, and there was no surge in violence -- violence simply began to fall once honest people started carrying.

Quote (about incentives):
----------------------------------------------------
That idea already exists federally, at the state, and local level here in california. Still, few people relocate there because a) the crime is high, b) inner cities are among the worst places to do business from a regulatory aspect. c) the existing pool of job applicants is highly sub par.
---------------------------------------------------------

In other words, they apply only PART of the solution and are amazed it doesn't work.

If you enjoyed reading about "Two interesting conversations with 'antis' today (with positive outcomes)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!