Jump to content
IGNORED

Crime & Punishment -- USA Edition


avatar!
 Share

Recommended Posts

Member · Posted
5 hours ago, Tabonga said:

Who the f**k is asleep at the wheel again?

And how much of this is going on across the country that doesn't get any coverage?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/nyc-career-criminal-slashes-man-231729049.html

Crime against Asians rose by over 340% from 2020 to 2021 in NYC! Subway crime is up over 200%. Maybe you can't blame "bail reform" for all crimes, but numerous ones like what you linked are absolutely due to completely worthless lawmakers that should all be fired.

https://nypost.com/2021/12/28/nycs-worst-2021-cases-stem-from-shaky-bail-reform-law/

Screenshot-from-2022-03-09-16-34-58.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Member · Posted

Our revolving jail doors at work...

Florida bus driver hailed as hero when gunman opens fire

https://news.yahoo.com/florida-bus-driver-hailed-hero-143537366.html

A bus driver is being called a hero for barreling into the parking lot of the Fort Lauderdale police headquarters after a gunman opened fire on the bus, killing two passengers.

Jamal Meyers, 34, faces charges of murder, attempted murder, weapons possession by a convicted felon and violating probation...According to court records, Meyers was sentenced in 2021 for 10 crimes committed between 2017 and 2019. Each conviction carried concurrent three-year sentences, so he ended up serving just five months in state prison after being given credit for more than 800 days awaiting trial. He was released on Jan. 8.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Member · Posted
Posted (edited)

NYC tourist shot over six-figure watch is crypto expert and ‘lifestyle guru’

https://nypost.com/2022/03/19/nyc-tourist-shot-over-six-figure-watch-is-crypto-expert/

Pierrick Jamaux told police a man demanded his watch as soon as he and his companions got out of an Uber at their midtown hotel Friday morning, and then shot him before he could react, according to law enforcement sources.

The suspect who shot Jamaux remained at large Saturday. Sources said that he could be seen in surveillance video going into a vestibule and then re-emerging a few seconds later in light colored clothing. He walked north on Lexington and dropped a dark bundle into a trash can. Another person could be seen picking up the bundle several minutes later, sources said.

Ah NYC, where strict gun laws truly make everyone feel safe - just ask Pierrick Jamaux how safe he feels

200.gif

Edited by avatar!
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Member · Posted
1 hour ago, avatar! said:

NYC tourist shot over six-figure watch is crypto expert and ‘lifestyle guru’

 

Ah NYC, where strict gun laws truly make everyone feel safe - just ask Pierrick Jamaux how safe he feels

 

Thats a stupid statement.  Common sense gun laws work. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Member · Posted
11 minutes ago, MrWunderful said:

Thats a stupid statement.  Common sense gun laws work. 

I am a proponent of "common sense gun laws" - BUT, do you really think this felon who shot Pierrick Jamaux gives one shit about gun laws? Also, what exactly is "common sense"? Again, I am in favor of keeping guns as far away from criminals and people who are mentally ill as possible - BUT once again that would never stop the person who shot Pierrick. NYC is notorious for being "anti-gun" at least in principle. Well, as of 2022 crime in NYC is up a whopping 40% over last year, which was another whopper over the previous year. Do you think allowing people to carry concealed handguns would be a disaster? Well, a major scholarly study a few years ago looked into that

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S107275151832074X

Conclusion -

This study demonstrated no statistically significant association between the liberalization of state level firearm carry legislation over the last 30 years and the rates of homicides or other violent crime.

30 years of data showed no statistical correlation between legal carry and violent crime! However, allowing people to carry weapons typically makes them feel safer. You might argue whether that really makes someone "safer" and you can argue whether they should first take a course in firearms safety, as required in say Massachusetts. But, point I am making is that the current gun laws in NYC DO NOT WORK. They have not stopped violent crime which is now rampant, and people naturally love to blame guns because hey, it's much easier than actually studying the data and having to do real reforms that could actually work.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Member · Posted
19 hours ago, avatar! said:

I am a proponent of "common sense gun laws" - BUT, do you really think this felon who shot Pierrick Jamaux gives one shit about gun laws? Also, what exactly is "common sense"? Again, I am in favor of keeping guns as far away from criminals and people who are mentally ill as possible - BUT once again that would never stop the person who shot Pierrick. NYC is notorious for being "anti-gun" at least in principle. Well, as of 2022 crime in NYC is up a whopping 40% over last year, which was another whopper over the previous year. Do you think allowing people to carry concealed handguns would be a disaster? Well, a major scholarly study a few years ago looked into that

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S107275151832074X

Conclusion -

This study demonstrated no statistically significant association between the liberalization of state level firearm carry legislation over the last 30 years and the rates of homicides or other violent crime.

30 years of data showed no statistical correlation between legal carry and violent crime! However, allowing people to carry weapons typically makes them feel safer. You might argue whether that really makes someone "safer" and you can argue whether they should first take a course in firearms safety, as required in say Massachusetts. But, point I am making is that the current gun laws in NYC DO NOT WORK. They have not stopped violent crime which is now rampant, and people naturally love to blame guns because hey, it's much easier than actually studying the data and having to do real reforms that could actually work.

so what do you suggest? Give people guns?
 

Looks like they dont work in areas where gun laws are relaxed either:

https://www.thirdway.org/report/the-red-state-murder-problem
 

Perfect study to break the idea that crime and murder are worse in “blue” states, when the rate is far higher in Trumper states. 


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Member · Posted
22 minutes ago, MrWunderful said:

so what do you suggest? Give people guns?

People who are mentally fit and law abiding should be allowed to carry guns in my opinion. However, I am certainly not in favor of having more guns. As I said, I support "common sense gun laws" BUT the problem is no one has actually ever said what those are - in fact, I would say they're for the most part just used as a talking point by politicians. Similar to when someone shouts "accountability" - what does that mean? Without context and studies it means 100% NOTHING. In fact, even admitting there is a problem is not as straightforward as you might think - take Chicago. Do you agree it's a "dangerous" city? Well, there are numerous articles that discuss "misconceiving crime trends" which is true to an extent. And they would argue that Chicago really is not that dangerous - mind you, I'm not agreeing with this analysis, but I have read that quite a lot. Yes, Chicago is a huge city, but I personally think the crime is rampant. Then again, I know people living in Chicago who say it's okay, just avoid certain neighborhoods...

But anyway, what do I suggest -

1)More police.
Evidence is clear that the more police you have around the safer the neighborhoods.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0144818808000732

2)Mental health - big one.
There is a lack of studies, a lack of facilities, lack of most anything. This is not easy, and lots of money has to be invested in this, but it is critical.
https://hcp.hms.harvard.edu/news/mental-illnesses-are-common-care-lacking

3)STOP the revolving doors!
Many violent offenders, whether using guns or not, are repeat criminals. Studies show that the majority of violent offenders are repeaters
https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/recidivism-among-federal-violent-offenders

I think my suggestions are "common sense".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Member · Posted
1 hour ago, avatar! said:

People who are mentally fit and law abiding should be allowed to carry guns in my opinion. However, I am certainly not in favor of having more guns. As I said, I support "common sense gun laws" BUT the problem is no one has actually ever said what those are - in fact, I would say they're for the most part just used as a talking point by politicians. Similar to when someone shouts "accountability" - what does that mean? Without context and studies it means 100% NOTHING. In fact, even admitting there is a problem is not as straightforward as you might think - take Chicago. Do you agree it's a "dangerous" city? Well, there are numerous articles that discuss "misconceiving crime trends" which is true to an extent. And they would argue that Chicago really is not that dangerous - mind you, I'm not agreeing with this analysis, but I have read that quite a lot. Yes, Chicago is a huge city, but I personally think the crime is rampant. Then again, I know people living in Chicago who say it's okay, just avoid certain neighborhoods...

But anyway, what do I suggest -

1)More police.
Evidence is clear that the more police you have around the safer the neighborhoods.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0144818808000732

2)Mental health - big one.
There is a lack of studies, a lack of facilities, lack of most anything. This is not easy, and lots of money has to be invested in this, but it is critical.
https://hcp.hms.harvard.edu/news/mental-illnesses-are-common-care-lacking

3)STOP the revolving doors!
Many violent offenders, whether using guns or not, are repeat criminals. Studies show that the majority of violent offenders are repeaters
https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/recidivism-among-federal-violent-offenders

I think my suggestions are "common sense".

Oh I didnt know we had unlimited money and prison time in this hypothetical situation. That changes everything! 
 

When I think of common sense, i think of magazine limiting, wait times, higher registration/licensing fees/ more stringent training requirements. Things that either don't cost anything, or generate and offset their cost. If you could eliminate the tax burden on the tax payer, I would say increase penalty time for modified, illegal and un-licensed possession, along with use during a crime, etc. but you need alot of prison space. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Member · Posted
4 hours ago, MrWunderful said:

When I think of common sense, i think of magazine limiting...

Again, a talking point for politicians that has no empirical nor scholarly support - in fact, it's about as effective as telling students that during a nuclear blast they need to get under their desks, since you know, that's "just common sense".

https://personal.utdallas.edu/~tvk071000/Banning Large Capacity Magazines Will Not Reduce Crime.pdf

the idea that freezing the supply of LCM’s [large capacity magazines] (as existing LCM’s would likely be grandfathered into the new ban) could produce a detectable drop in the rate of gun homicides seems unlikely at best – gun criminals rarely fire large numbers of rounds.

Recent history also casts doubt on whether a ban on LCM’s would alter the number of persons killed and wounded in mass public shootings... Further, there are virtually no mass killings in which there is a bystander or victim willing to tackle the killer even if he does need to reload...And there is strong empirical evidence showing that the use of guns for self-protection is both frequent and effective. Making LCM’s unavailable for self-defense can therefore cost lives, and this cost must be taken into account when considering the possible benefit of limiting on magazine capacity that could save lives in only the rarest of crimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Member · Posted
9 hours ago, avatar! said:

Again, a talking point for politicians that has no empirical nor scholarly support - in fact, it's about as effective as telling students that during a nuclear blast they need to get under their desks, since you know, that's "just common sense".

https://personal.utdallas.edu/~tvk071000/Banning Large Capacity Magazines Will Not Reduce Crime.pdf

the idea that freezing the supply of LCM’s [large capacity magazines] (as existing LCM’s would likely be grandfathered into the new ban) could produce a detectable drop in the rate of gun homicides seems unlikely at best – gun criminals rarely fire large numbers of rounds.

Recent history also casts doubt on whether a ban on LCM’s would alter the number of persons killed and wounded in mass public shootings... Further, there are virtually no mass killings in which there is a bystander or victim willing to tackle the killer even if he does need to reload...And there is strong empirical evidence showing that the use of guns for self-protection is both frequent and effective. Making LCM’s unavailable for self-defense can therefore cost lives, and this cost must be taken into account when considering the possible benefit of limiting on magazine capacity that could save lives in only the rarest of crimes.

You took one of my minor points and refuted it with a college essay, obviously written by someone who didn't care for Obama, supported by zero actual evidence?
 

 this is taken from the POV of how to stop school shootings-  not overall gun control too, which is a while different thing. 
 

Have you ever trained with a firearm? Because I have. Pistol and AR.
 Limited magazine size would absolutely limit shootings, this isnt call of duty with highly trained operators dumping and swapping mags lol. 
 

Find me some real evidence of the fact that they dont work. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Member · Posted
2 hours ago, MrWunderful said:

You took one of my minor points and refuted it with a college essay, obviously written by someone who didn't care for Obama, supported by zero actual evidence?

The "college essay" was written by Dr. Tomislav Kovandzic who is a faculty member in the School of Economic, Political and Policy Sciences, at UT-Dallas and Dr. Gary Kleck a criminologist and distinguished emeritus professor at Florida State University. Somehow... I find them more authoritative on this subject than you nor I. I think any evidence I present to you will make zero difference, since as @Tanooki rightly noted, you've already made up your mind. However, if you would bother to read "the essay" you would find that although short they do indeed throw out statistics and studies they have done and concluded limiting magazine size simply does not work. Again, what works is

1)Having more police.

2)Mental health facilities.

3)Keeping violent offenders in jail.

Everything you noted "magazine limiting, wait times, higher registration/licensing fees/ more stringent training requirements" would simply have no affect on homicides and shootings. While I support background checks, it's so easy for a criminal to get a gun that studies have shown background checks are nearly meaningless. Training requirements would hopefully keep someone from accidentally hurting themselves or a family member and I see use for that, but again has no affect on homicides and violent crime. Licensing fees adds more money to the coffer, so I can see why politicians like it, but again, no affect whatsoever on crime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Member · Posted
46 minutes ago, avatar! said:

The "college essay" was written by Dr. Tomislav Kovandzic who is a faculty member in the School of Economic, Political and Policy Sciences, at UT-Dallas and Dr. Gary Kleck a criminologist and distinguished emeritus professor at Florida State University. Somehow... I find them more authoritative on this subject than you nor I. I think any evidence I present to you will make zero difference, since as @Tanooki rightly noted, you've already made up your mind. However, if you would bother to read "the essay" you would find that although short they do indeed throw out statistics and studies they have done and concluded limiting magazine size simply does not work. Again, what works is

1)Having more police.

2)Mental health facilities.

3)Keeping violent offenders in jail.

Everything you noted "magazine limiting, wait times, higher registration/licensing fees/ more stringent training requirements" would simply have no affect on homicides and shootings. While I support background checks, it's so easy for a criminal to get a gun that studies have shown background checks are nearly meaningless. Training requirements would hopefully keep someone from accidentally hurting themselves or a family member and I see use for that, but again has no affect on homicides and violent crime. Licensing fees adds more money to the coffer, so I can see why politicians like it, but again, no affect whatsoever on crime.

THEY ARE PROFESSORS, THEY KNOW MORE THAN YOU!!!!!! lol

 

The essay points to “a few studies” but doesnt name any of them. Dig them up and I will read them.

 

  Here is a q and a by John Hopkins university, proving opposite of what you said:

https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2021/policies-that-reduce-gun-violence-restricting-large-capacity-magazines

 

here is another study from the amrican journey of public health- with data proof that supports my point (when it comes to mass shootings)

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2019.305311

 


Quoting Tanooki doesnt help your case either  because you haven't provided any actual evidence.  Its cute and might get you a dm from him, but thats it.
You have to support your own points. i havent made up my mind about anything. I can be convinced with empirical evidence. Saying “you have already made up your mind so Its not going to matter” means you are running out of arguments. 
 

How can you prove that a standard federal wait time won’t decrease homicides? You can’t, and neither can I.  But if hypothetically, with unlimited amounts of money, if you enacted all of my ideas on a federal level, based on proven research, it would cut down on homicides.

 

Just like with unlimited money and resources, your solutions are noble and would probably work- they arent based in todays reality.  How would “mental health facilities” work? We already have 5150 holds, and those dont work. Start throwing people in the looney bin?
 

and you never answered my question, have you ever fired or trained with a firearm? Because you talk like someone who has never held one. I own multiple firearms, have taken pistol defense classes as well as Rifle training (by a professional trainer, and plenty of “dry” training on my own)  

I stand by my “common sense” ideas.

 

Edited by MrWunderful
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Member · Posted
Posted (edited)
On 3/23/2022 at 12:03 PM, MrWunderful said:

THEY ARE PROFESSORS, THEY KNOW MORE THAN YOU!!!!!! lol

Yes, they do know more than you, and more than I, about this subject. If anyone thinks people that are professors know less than them ABOUT A SUBJECT THEY HAVE BEEN STUDYING AND RESEARCHING THEIR WHOLE LIFE... well, they probably should consider medication for narcissism.

Haven't had time to read the articles you linked to yet, but I promise you I will.

Also, here is an interesting article that claims limiting large-capacity magazines does help reduce casualties in mass shootings.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1745-9133.12487

Of course a couple of things to keep in mind

1)Mass shootings are rare. I know how rare they are - do you? What percentage do you think they are?

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/mass-shootings-are-rare-firearm-suicides-are-much-more-common-and-kill-more-americans

2)Limiting LCMs may help in the tiny fraction that is mass shootings, but it does not help in the vast vast majority of other firearm shootings, as the previous paper (you know, the one written by professors) shows. Oh, and the paper also noted that

"Other laws commonly advocated as solutions to mass shootings—comprehensive background checks, assault weapons bans, and de-regulation of civilian concealed carry of firearms—were unrelated to fatal mass shootings."

Oh yeah, and I took my first firearms safety course when I was 12.

Edited by avatar!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Member · Posted

https://komonews.com/news/local/2-teen-fugitive-suspects-in-pawn-shop-robbery-now-prime-suspects-in-tacoma-pot-shop-murder

Hatfield and Jones have also been charged in a violent and brazen daylight pawn shop robbery in Federal Way in which customers and workers were pistol whipped and assaulted during the incident...After that robbery, the two were ordered to wear electronic monitoring systems but they have both cut the devices off and have been on the run ever since, law enforcement authorities told KOMO News.

I'm shocked... shocked I tell you. How is it possible that an electronic monitoring system could fail to stop a violent offender?? Of course because of such utter bullshite, these two pieces of human excrement have now murdered an innocent person, well, at least one that we know of.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Member · Posted
18 hours ago, avatar! said:
 

I'm shocked... shocked I tell you. How is it possible that an electronic monitoring system could fail to stop a violent offender?? Of course because of such utter bullshite, these two pieces of human excrement have now murdered an innocent person, well, at least one that we know of.

If only hacksaws, bolt cutters etc. were outlawed they would have had to obey the law..........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Member · Posted

Colorado may amend new law that limits arrests for weapons possession

https://www.yahoo.com/news/colorado-may-amend-law-limits-193603725.html

When Pueblo police responded to reports of gunfire near the 1800 block of East 5th Street earlier this month, they said they found an armed man who had eight previous felony offenses, including several that were drug-related. But legislation that took effect at the beginning of March meant they couldn't arrest him, they said.

Previous offenders convicted of felonies related to drugs, burglary, arson, and more are not barred from possessing guns under the new law. Federal law still prohibits gun possession by those with previous felony convictions, but they will no longer be prosecuted in Colorado.

One of the main reasons we're having an uptick in violence is because of morons that are put in charge. We need to vote these useless politicians out and elect people with a modicum of common sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Member · Posted
2 hours ago, Tabonga said:

I wonder if he knows just how hypocritical he is -- rhetorical, he does not!

He was supposedly protesting violence and injustice (a good thing to protest), but the driver of the Jeep had no warning there were going to be people on the interstate because the protest was illegal. So what does this idiot do? while supposedly protesting violence, he SHOOTS at unarmed people in a car! What a loser.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Member · Posted

Screenshot-from-2022-04-04-15-07-25.png

A Honea Path man accused of owning a dangerous animal that attacked a woman who lost both her arms was granted a $15,000 bond Thursday.

I'm sure he did not mean for this happen, but I don't feel a few years in jail (if he gets any) is fair. Letting dangerous animals just run around... I'm not even sure what a fair sentence would be. Financially he may be ruined, but no amount of money can amend what happened to this poor woman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Member · Posted
1 hour ago, avatar! said:

I wonder if he knows just how hypocritical he is -- rhetorical, he does not!

He was supposedly protesting violence and injustice (a good thing to protest), but the driver of the Jeep had no warning there were going to be people on the interstate because the protest was illegal. So what does this idiot do? while supposedly protesting violence, he SHOOTS at unarmed people in a car! What a loser.

This should be considered a win/win for everyone here - no one is going to argue that he should  have had a gun there and everyone should agree that he misused it.   GROUP HUG!!!!

 

 

Edited by Tabonga
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...