This is a devils advocate argument. Participate only if you think you can defeat it. The abbreviation "DAA" will precede the title of these. So here goes:

Jails are a waste of money. We wouldn't need jails if everyone were allowed to carry hand guns on their person.

If I am getting what you want correctly---

Why should I pay for jails if everyone had a gun?

The rich would win, because if everyone has a gun, the one who could afford the biggest and most guns would have the advantage over the one who could not afford more than a little one and by the time he pulled the trigger, he would have been dead

Plus cliques and gangs would prevail
A loner would have no one to protect his back

The rich person could have the latest protective gear to protect him from any gun

And what if the bad guy had something that wasn't a gun? Something indestructable? Say TNT to blow up the guy with the gun

And what if everyone had a gun, but only the rich guy had any ammo? He bought it all up?

rock/paper/scissor/match all can win sometimes

I wonder if anyone could win this aguement.
But i bet Frenchy will give it a hell of a try.

Jails are not for rich people. Rich people don't have as much reason to commit crimes.

Win for which side?

Rich people buy there way out of trouble. (You don't have to be super rich either, just enough to satisfy them).

But it doesn't stop a rich person from getting shot by a poor person, and the top line of the bad people are rich, so in a way you are wrong

It's just the rich are doing business (in their minds) like Ken Lay

So it depens what your definition of crimes are

Rich people can wall themselves in with safe gated communities.

Personal attacks that would be prevented if victim had had a gun on their person.

Are you implying that committing crimes is the easiest way to get rich?

My point wasn't that rich people don't commit crimes, but that they have less of a reason to commit crimes once they are rich, and especially not the kind of crimes that need to have them jailed, unless they need to keep killing witnesses to cover their tracks. You can just slap them on the wrist and tell the to stop doing it. That's essentially what a country-club prison is anyway.

I shouldn't have to pay for a either poor people in a maximum security prisons or rich people in country-club prisons with my tax dollars

I take issue with your statement ..."and especially not the kind of crimes that need to have them jailed." etc....

Now could it possibly be, and I have not researched this yet, but "rich people" commit just as many crimes as poor people? Could they be of a different nature, not involve violence, murder, rape...yet are crimes against the law, society and humanity that because of financial resources do not even surface as crimes?

Yes it's possible. But jailing them won't stop them from committing those types of crimes through their networks. Look at the mafia.

I'm not defending rich people or criminals. I'm defending the idea that I shouldn't have to pay for either rich or poor people's incarcerations.

Know what? This isn't directed at you Bill, just the post. I'm sick of the Mafia posts around this place. I find it as offensive as some feel about the Nazi comments, anti Jewish sentiments, and other stereotypical statements that have graced this board and taken to task. Sorry to go off topic here. If I have anything more to say, I will start another thread.

Sorry, I should have used the term, organized crime for it to seem less racial.

The dictionary defines mafia in definition #4:This is more of what was meant by the term.

bill (this is said in a comical way)...Just say bushfamily or bushfamilyinc. and everyone on this board will get the meaning.

But this is where you thesis fails- because a hefty jail term for this bunch would be needed.

Jail is also a deterrent so the poor people don't get it in the end again.

That stops a rich person from doing it again, if he is in jail (assuming he can't just pick up the phhone and give orders anyhow so nothing stops.)

Yes, a rich person at the moment won't steal a 6 pack of beer. But doesn't mean he didn't steal one in his youth, and the jail term back then he got, was what kept him on the straight and narrow later on.

And in reality-the people in jail are paying their taxes for things they don't need
and keeping other of your personal expenses down, so doesn't it equal out?
How much are you personally paying for the jail?

It is like people who don't have school age kids whining about paying for improvements on schools (big problem in NJ, have no idea if it is the same nationwide, Jersey is weird in this respect.)

Older people en masse come out to vote against the school budget, yet then when the schools go down, and they try to sell their homes and don't get top dollar because people no longer want to live in that area, didn't they shoot themselves in their rear???

Point taken and understood. Thanks for the clarification.

If the bushfamilyinc is as powerful as you think, they can just buy the courts and never have to go to jail. So it's not a question of "if jail would stop them" or "if jailing them would cost less to the tax payer" if they never go to jail.

They have phones in jail. They have visitation in jail. They probably will have internet in jail if they don't already. So the rich and powerful keep their organized crime networks.

If jail were an effective deterrent, there wouldn't be anyone in jail.

That's another devil's advocate argument. I probably can argue the opposite end of that one, but since my wife is a teacher, I will not go there yet if at all.

I'm also not going their with you on this thread because educational funding has nothing to do with gun control and little to do with incarceration. One could argue that education funding has much to do with avoiding incarceration and much to do with rehabilitation. But the argument on this thread is for no jails, regardless of education funding levels.

So you are for anarchy, no jail, except for the 2nd amendment...no other laws or rules needed

I'm playing devil's advocate. I'm not for it. I'm just looking for CGCS' best arguments against it.

You've made good attempts. I just hope more CGCS members bring good arguments as well. I would like to be defeated on this subject.

Guns for personal protection are not a deterrent to crime, but a protection from crime.
Social evolution is the only thing that will alleviate crime, and the need for guns for that purpose.

You ask why should you pay for jails as a rich person you need not go to jail, because you don't commit a jail type crime
When you just need the gun

OK say you don't have to pay for jails and all guns are legal

Let's look at the common man who sells the guns and ammo

The rich man can stay home, but eventually will run out of bullets

And the people he deals with on a normal day

OOPS, there are no jails, so the gun maker, the ammo maker is killed and all his stuff taken

Then no one can make it anymre (and any new person will also be killed and the stuff taken)

Or anther richer person hires everyone away leaving this rich guy with nothing

Also-
the limo driver Mr. Richman has is murdered
The computer programer he has is killed
The maid he has is killed

all before reaching his home

Yes, Mr. Rich is safe in his gated community (however, the poorly paid guard is then murdered and Mr. Crimnal works the gate

The bank people are killed, and the criminal programs Mr. Rich's account and takes all his money

Mr. Rich is now Mr. Poor

This assumes that all the people who work for the Rich can't protect themselves.

No jails doesn't mean these criminals are free to do what they want. No jails and more guns means more criminals are shot dead instead of going to jail.

So, if everyone has a gun, is everyone protected from crime?

I agree.

But do we need jails if everyone has hand guns on their person?

The short answer here is no, Bill. A gun in and of itself, is an inanimate object and will not deter crime. In fact...A gun in an un-trained hand is more dangerous to its operator than the assailant.
It is in fact only one tool that a person can use to protect himself from criminal harm.
However...if one has the correct mindset and obtains the right training, a gun is effective.




There is an old adage..."An armed society is a polite society"

Pithy, but one look at Iraq and one can find the fallacy here.

You have two kinds of gun handlers...Honest and law-abiding...and the other kind. It's the "other kind" that at this point, justifies the jails.
As I've stated...Social change needs to be a priority in this country, before we can curb our unique form of crime. A simple prohibition of an inanimate object won't accomplish this.

I'm not disputing that a gun doesn't deter crime. And you raise a good point about the importance of training that comes with gun ownership.

There is no doubt that the gun offers some level of protection.

Hypothetical situation, if everyone had a gun on their person and everyone were trained to at least the level of not endangering themselves with their own guns, would that be enough to protect enough people to the extent that we didn't need to jail violent criminals?

Assuming your answer is no, then isn't it possible that the sum of all guns puts the average person at risk more than the sum of all guns protects the average person?

I'm glad you're arguing for the better side of this debate.

I gladly concede defeat as the devil's advocate in this debate. There will always be a need for jails if we don't want to kill people for petty crimes or just threatening us.

Banning guns alone will not solve the problem. I think what makes liberals want to ban guns is not the idea that banning guns solve the problem, but that banning guns would reduce the problem. But as we saw with prohibition of liquor and narcotics, bans empower criminals.

I guess there is no way of knowing if the sum of all guns does more harm then good unless either everyone had a gun and was trained to use it or a successful ban made sure nobody had a gun. Neither is realistic.

Nebraska and Omaha Nebraska is dealing with passed concealed weapons laws. Now that is the real scary part because the idiots carrying guns can hide them.
My best friend had a gun, her five year old found it, shot her own hand and her husband ran in saw what happened and had a heart attack.
I bar-tended for 5 years and a waitress asked for her purse from behind the bar. I threw it to her and it hit the bar. She went pale and wide eyed and then showed me she had a gun in her purse.
All that before there were counseled weapon laws.
I also remember getting in a car for a ride and when I felt something under the floor mat I found another gun. Women driver, woman passenger.
I reached a point where before I let my children go to peoples houses not only do they have to ask if their parents will be home they have to ask if there are any guns in the house.
Before my kids ride in a car they ask if the owner is insured and if they carry a gun in the car.
That is good parenting in today's world!

Jails protect you, but are dangerous places.
...but for a minute let me speak to firearms...

---------------------
Firearms demand vigiliance, nothing less.

Always have them contained in proper
containers (zipped, cushioned bags;
locked cases; proper holsters); always
keep them kid-secure, unloaded and
ammunition in a separate place if children
can enter areas where they are stored;
use trigger locks or disassemble so they
can not operate if there are children in the household.

If taken from the household or business keep them
locked in vehicle compartments or with you always.

If you own a firearm, familiarize with it at least annually.
Be sure the mechanics and your knowledge and handling
skills are rigidly maintained. Familiarize at a professional
range under the tutorial of a professional, law enforcement
certified instructor. If children are in the household
allow them to witness the sound and damage they inflict once
there are able to reach areas where they are securely stored.

Enforce strict oversight and understanding of usage
involving all firearms and ammunition (sharp-edged
weapons as well).

Automobiles will kill more annually than firearms,
but firearms are made to inflict deadly force and
therefore (like martial arts) moral and ethical instruction
and respect for their function is mandatory. Like martial
arts the use of a firearm during a confrontation must
involve the knowledge that once started will probably
lead to death. So, like deadly, empty-handed, force
moral and ethical instruction should always teach such
usage is always a last resort, which will change you
and others for eternity.

That said...in the hands of well-trained, righteous
individuals firearms have protected freedoms from
east to west for centuries. In the hands of tyrants
guns strip freedoms. So keep you politics active
and your powder dry.
---------------------
Jails are over used and extremely expensive.
They are breeding grounds for criminality; and,
while neccessary, must be extremely closely
scrutinized...including their operators...
just like firearms.