JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Is it really such a crime that your sarcastic comment triggered a deeper thought in me?

I don't think that your analogy works. In your classroom, you are a leading authority figure with a direct relationship and oversight of the kids. Your role does not map onto big daddy government / law enforcement. You could make a case that it would map onto a prison guard overseeing a cell block...but that's about it. The government has no direct relationship, no direct oversight of anyone (discounting the NSA, of course. Hi Hillary!).

There's a boatload of literature on crime and punishment and the deterrent affects of the latter...a good place to start is: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.844.2084&rep=rep1&type=pdf

What you'll find is that punishments have a much smaller affect on crime than you're thinking.

Punishment and public display of it may help sustain the authority you have in the classroom...but that example doesn't map onto adults out in the world.
That argument has been made "punishment doesn't affect crime that much" nearly as long as there has existed a punitive justice system and I have always found it to be absolute crap. The teacher is no different from a policemen interacting with the public. The teachers job is to enforce the rules of the classroom, the policeman's job is to enforce the laws of society. It is no coincidence that kids who can't manage their behavior in school have an extremely high likelyhood to be arrested and/or put in prison as an adult. "The school to prison pipeline" as they call it. It also completely ignores our current state of the American classroom, which in many public schools is "out of control" with terrible behavior. Behavior that absolutely did not exist back when corporal punishment occurred in mainstream public school. Why do I bring up corporal punishment, because it is an example of when you remove the consequence that kids respect from being an option, and what is left is ineffective, the poor behavior grows. Same thing with crime.

I don't see how anyone can even try to argue with the notion that if you decriminalize crime, you will have less of those actions occur. We see the exact opposite playing out right now in major cities where many crimes have stopped being prosecuted and all crime across the board has increased.
 
Last Edited:
Since it will eventually trickle down to our right to use our guns for defense due to these new insane "get out of jail free cards" then yes it has to do with firearms.
While it's my understanding that WA's laws are similar to OR's (as it relates to the lawful use of deadly force), I can only speak for what I know about OR's statues.

The laws in Oregon are written as such:



A person is justified in using physical force upon another person for self-defense or to defend a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force, and the person may use a degree of force which the person reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose.

A person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person unless the person reasonably believes that the other person is:

(1)

Committing or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person; or

(2)

Committing or attempting to commit a burglary in a dwelling; or

(3)

Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force against a person.


A person is not justified in using physical force upon another person if:

(1)

With intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, the person provokes the use of unlawful physical force by that person; or

(2)

The person is the initial aggressor, except that the use of physical force upon another person under such circumstances is justifiable if the person withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person the intent to do so, but the latter nevertheless continues or threatens to continue the use of unlawful physical force; or

(3)

The physical force involved is the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.




I'm not exactly clear how the law referenced in the article would amend the above.

It's my belief and understanding that LEOs are not duty bound to protect the public. Their primary function is to enforce the law(hence the name LEO), to investigate criminal activity, and to apprehend offenders.

This is one of the primary reasons that I exercise my right to be responsible for my own safety and that of my family's through firearms ownership.
 
While it's my understanding that WA's laws are similar to OR's (as it relates to the lawful use of deadly force), I can only speak for what I know about OR's statues.

The laws in Oregon are written as such:



A person is justified in using physical force upon another person for self-defense or to defend a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force, and the person may use a degree of force which the person reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose.

A person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person unless the person reasonably believes that the other person is:

(1)

Committing or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person; or

(2)

Committing or attempting to commit a burglary in a dwelling; or

(3)

Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force against a person.


A person is not justified in using physical force upon another person if:

(1)

With intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, the person provokes the use of unlawful physical force by that person; or

(2)

The person is the initial aggressor, except that the use of physical force upon another person under such circumstances is justifiable if the person withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person the intent to do so, but the latter nevertheless continues or threatens to continue the use of unlawful physical force; or

(3)

The physical force involved is the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.




I'm not exactly clear how the law referenced in the article would amend the above.

It's my belief and understanding that LEOs are not duty bound to protect the public. Their primary function is to enforce the law(hence the name LEO), to investigate criminal activity, and to apprehend offenders.

This is one of the primary reasons that I exercise my right to be responsible for my own safety and that of my family's through firearms ownership.
If you choose to never watch and read news its easy to feel comfortable. Problem is we have to live in the real world. Laws mean NOTHING. They only mean what a black robe tells you they mean. Hopefully you will never find out the hard way just how much fun using a gun to defend yourself can be after it all over. It can be a totally "clean shoot". That does NOT mean you are free and clear. If some law agency decides to say it was not "clean" you get to find out how much fun it will be waving that list of laws in the first black robes face and watch them laugh at you.
Ignorance truly is bliss until its not. :s0092:
 
YEP!! I often mention when I was in school and guns. Those of use who had access to a vehicle often would bring a gun to school. Both to show off our latest at breaks and to shoot and or hunt after. No one, NO ONE got shot or even threatened with one. Wonder why? Could it be there was ZERO doubt what would happen to anyone who did? Principal of place one time brought to school his deer rifle to loan to a student who had won a tag but had no rifle. Can anyone just imagine what would happen to this guy today if he did this? Best thing he would have to look for would be loss of his job. In most places they would arrest his butt.
Or worse, I am sure they would try to find every little loophole to destroy his life completely.
 
View attachment 1003839

I read the entire article. With the exception of Jonnyuma's astute observation; I failed to see how it pertained to 'Firearms Laws & Legal'.

It seems this thread would be more suited to the 'Off Topic' section.
Agreed - good call.

The effect of early childhood restrictions on behavior to teach children a social norm (that of which is being destroyed by the leftist at light speed)

Ah, that makes sense. Societal norms have been under attack for some time now. That being said, some "norms" are worth destroying. The norm of a breadwinner father who spends all of his time working to provide for the family has robbed as many kids of their dads as the prison industrial complex, for example. The problem with destroying things is that, well, it's easy. It's far harder to build and for every norm destroyed a new one should take its place.


Criminals share a LOT with people in power. Criminals of course scoff at laws. All they care about is consequences. If real pain is very probable, fewer will break a law. Those in power could care less about peoples opinion of them. Angry letters and such they laugh at. Now if they think they will lose that job that gives them power? That they fear and will do what they think will let them keep that job, even when they are 180 degree's opposed to what they are doing and or saying.

There's got to be a study somewhere about the personality differences between white collar criminals and street criminals...I'd guess it's something to do with conscientiousness...I'll see what I can dig up.

YEP!! I often mention when I was in school and guns. Those of use who had access to a vehicle often would bring a gun to school. Both to show off our latest at breaks and to shoot and or hunt after. No one, NO ONE got shot or even threatened with one. Wonder why? Could it be there was ZERO doubt what would happen to anyone who did? Principal of place one time brought to school his deer rifle to loan to a student who had won a tag but had no rifle. Can anyone just imagine what would happen to this guy today if he did this? Best thing he would have to look for would be loss of his job. In most places they would arrest his butt.

From where do your morals and values come? If you found yourself on a deserted island with another soul, would you kill him just because? Would you sleep easy after that? I'm going to assume that, by your activity on a gun forum, you are not a felon...So, your example of, "well punishments deterred me so they must work" really doesn't apply and it offers no insight into the motivations of a criminal - where punishments obviously did not work.

That argument has been made "punishment doesn't affect crime that much" nearly as long as there has existed a punitive justice system and I have always found it to be absolute crap. The teacher is no different from a policemen interacting with the public. The teachers job is to enforce the rules of the classroom, the policeman's job is to enforce the laws of society. It is no coincidence that kids who can't manage their behavior in school have an extremely high likelyhood to be arrested and/or put in prison as an adult. "The school to prison pipeline" as they call it. It also completely ignores our current state of the American classroom, which in many public schools is "out of control" with terrible behavior. Behavior that absolutely did not exist back when corporal punishment occurred in mainstream public school. Why do I bring up corporal punishment, because it is an example of when you remove the consequence that kids respect from being an option, and what is left is innecective, the poor behavior grows. Same thing with crime.

I don't see how anyone can even try to argue with the notion that if you decriminalize crime, you will have less of those actions occur. We see the exact opposite playing out right now in major cities where many crimes have stopped being prosecuted and all crime across the board has increased.

You missed my point. A teacher is constantly in front of the students, just like a prison guard. But both are not always there, watching. You cannot compare the actions of an individual under scrutiny by an authority to one not so observed.

I never made the point that decriminalizing anything would cause there to be fewer occurences. I simply said that punishment is not a factor in whether or not the behavior occurs in the first place. This is why harsh sentences and/or the death penalty have little to no affect in lowering the crime they sought to reduce: the person committing those crimes is not thinking or weighing the punishment against their future.

Regarding corporal punishment in schools...if one feels the need to hit a child, then they've failed miserably. The scars of such action will last much longer than the bruises.
 
+If you choose to never watch and read news its easy to feel comfortable. Problem is we have to live in the real world. Laws mean NOTHING. They only mean what a black robe tells you they mean. Hopefully you will never find out the hard way just how much fun using a gun to defend yourself can be after it all over. It can be a totally "clean shoot". That does NOT mean you are free and clear. If some law agency decides to say it was not "clean" you get to find out how much fun it will be waving that list of laws in the first black robes face and watch them laugh at you.
Ignorance truly is bliss until its not. :s0092:
I absolutely agree with you.

As for the news...As much as I deem it necessary to be informed, I've often found that watching/reading too much of the news lately gets me in an angry mood.

So yes, "ignorance is bliss". Life is too short to spend it 'pissed off' most of the time.
 
From where do your morals and values come? If you found yourself on a deserted island with another soul, would you kill him just because? Would you sleep easy after that? I'm going to assume that, by your activity on a gun forum, you are not a felon...So, your example of, "well punishments deterred me so they must work" really doesn't apply and it offers no insight into the motivations of a criminal - where punishments obviously did not work.
Read Lord of The Flies. It was VERY good at showing what happens when humans are left to their own. Make walking out of a store with stuff you did not pay for no crime and you get what there is tons of video of happening now in SanFran. Wonder why those people causally walking out of the store with stuff was not happening when law was enforced. Just a sudden thing that had nothing to do with law not being enforced I guess.
It is amazing to see people watch something happen, then claim their eyes are lying to them. :s0092:
 
Agreed - good call.



Ah, that makes sense. Societal norms have been under attack for some time now. That being said, some "norms" are worth destroying. The norm of a breadwinner father who spends all of his time working to provide for the family has robbed as many kids of their dads as the prison industrial complex, for example. The problem with destroying things is that, well, it's easy. It's far harder to build and for every norm destroyed a new one should take its place.




There's got to be a study somewhere about the personality differences between white collar criminals and street criminals...I'd guess it's something to do with conscientiousness...I'll see what I can dig up.



From where do your morals and values come? If you found yourself on a deserted island with another soul, would you kill him just because? Would you sleep easy after that? I'm going to assume that, by your activity on a gun forum, you are not a felon...So, your example of, "well punishments deterred me so they must work" really doesn't apply and it offers no insight into the motivations of a criminal - where punishments obviously did not work.



You missed my point. A teacher is constantly in front of the students, just like a prison guard. But both are not always there, watching. You cannot compare the actions of an individual under scrutiny by an authority to one not so observed.

I never made the point that decriminalizing anything would cause there to be fewer occurences. I simply said that punishment is not a factor in whether or not the behavior occurs in the first place. This is why harsh sentences and/or the death penalty have little to no affect in lowering the crime they sought to reduce: the person committing those crimes is not thinking or weighing the punishment against their future.

Regarding corporal punishment in schools...if one feels the need to hit a child, then they've failed miserably. The scars of such action will last much longer than the bruises.
I believe I am missing the point, because what keeps people "not under supervision" from breaking the law (apart from morals) if not the fear that they will be caught and punished for what they did?
 
I believe I am missing the point, because what keeps people "not under supervision" from breaking the law (apart from morals) if not the fear that they will be caught and punished for what they did?
Exactly, and as much as I hate to say it a lot of people in our society and in our world don't break laws and hurt others out of fear and if that's what keeps the entire world from utter chaos then so be it…
 
We can debate the mind of the criminal and their motivation all day. At the end of that day, the reality on the ground is that when LE tactics change, criminal tactics change. Now that they will no longer be taken into custody absent immediate, clear evidence of personal guilt, they have more options. Not all of them will change tactics right away or ever, but as we've seen when shoplifting laws became unenforceable in some areas, enough of them will. It's absolutely going to get worse.
 
We can debate the mind of the criminal and their motivation all day. At the end of that day, the reality on the ground is that when LE tactics change, criminal tactics change. Now that they will no longer be taken into custody absent immediate, clear evidence of personal guilt, they have more options. Not all of them will change tactics right away or ever, but as we've seen when shoplifting laws became unenforceable in some areas, enough of them will. It's absolutely going to get worse.
There are a lot of criminals who know exactly what they can and can't do to get away with things. There are people who literally use crime as a career, and people think they don't know how to work the system?
 
The world was screwed up and the laws were twisted before this garbage passed, it's just slightly worse now.
 
I believe I am missing the point, because what keeps people "not under supervision" from breaking the law (apart from morals) if not the fear that they will be caught and punished for what they did?

Did you read the article that I linked? Because your question is answered there and it's a bit long to post here. In short, fear of punishment is a motivator, of course, but a smaller one than you are implying...it is not the lynchpin that holds the world up.

Read Lord of The Flies. It was VERY good at showing what happens when humans are left to their own. Make walking out of a store with stuff you did not pay for no crime and you get what there is tons of video of happening now in SanFran. Wonder why those people causally walking out of the store with stuff was not happening when law was enforced. Just a sudden thing that had nothing to do with law not being enforced I guess.
It is amazing to see people watch something happen, then claim their eyes are lying to them. :s0092:

So...your example is a work of fiction as opposed to the research and history incorporating thousands of years of human evolution and society, much of which pre-dates written law?
 
Did you read the article that I linked? Because your question is answered there and it's a bit long to post here. In short, fear of punishment is a motivator, of course, but a smaller one than you are implying...it is not the lynchpin that holds the world up.



So...your example is a work of fiction as opposed to the research and history incorporating thousands of years of human evolution and society, much of which pre-dates written law?
So you're saying enforcing laws is bad?
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top