Gun Control- Yes, No, Maybe so?

[Lea]

#1: Gun control doesn't always translate to banning all firearms.
#2: Yes. People kill people. This is why Gun Control is rational, like police officers.
#3: Statistics say otherwise, because if you remove the easy way to murder people, less people end up committing murder because it takes more effort. Same way that people rarely steal from bank vaults, they usually steal from small stores or personal homes or mug people on the street: It's easier.
#4: Saying the government would intentionally abuse its power to hurt you first implies the government is both competent enough to do it and implies the government gives a shit about you. Neither of which is true.
#5: If zombies take over, I'll be the first to eat the cyanide tablets.

#1: Yeah but it always translates to banning most of them so they might as well take all of them away, since it won't matter in the long run. Like I noted already, most of the people who are out their killing people are doing it with guns gained illegally. To be honest that's the reason why this discussion is even up in the first place because the previous restrictions didn't affect their killing sprees in the least.
#2: Police officers you say? These are your rational police officers!!! Police officers are composed of humans just like the world is so they aren't any better than regular people. Sure, there's a percentage of good cops out there but there's also the other percentage of bad cops that cancel them out.
#3: Eh, I'm not unreasonably stubborn so I'll give you that.
#4: I don't care what anyone says, the government is smarter than both you and I know. They're so smart in fact that they are reading this message and they're like "No one will believe this 'Lea' person because people like to believe in something that makes them feel good rather than the actual truth.". The government is actually the ones who planted bs stuff like this into your minds only to favor their needs. Answer me this question, where do you think all of the restricted guns go after Gun Control laws go into effect? Don't bother because it goes to the Army/Airforce/whatever and by those guns going to the army, then they can easily rain more hell upon neighboring continents while at the same, being able to conserve their funds.
#5: See!? And this is why we need guns so people won't have to resort to things like this. For all we know, we could've possibly maintained the outbreak had Gun Control laws been at a respectable level.

 

[Brovo]

#1: Yeah but it always translates to banning most of them

... Switzerland has gun control laws. It has tens of thousands of assault weapons, if not hundreds of thousands, in civilian hands. So... No. Gun control doesn't lead to gun bans: Politics lead to gun bans. Same way that guns don't kill people, people wielding guns kill people.

#2: Police officers you say? These are your rational police officers!!! Police officers are composed of humans just like the world is so they aren't any better than regular people. Sure, there's a percentage of good cops out there but there's also the other percentage of bad cops that cancel them out.

Vast majority of police officers are just like the vast majority of people: Decent folk who just want to do their job and go home. If you don't believe me, look at the trade towers from 9/11. It took only a few people to knock down two towers, but thousands ran in to help search for survivors.

I'm not a betting man, but I'll take those odds any day mate. For every one awful police officer in the news, there's ten more who'll tip their hat to ya and wish you a good day. If even a significant minority of police officers were so blatantly corrupt and violent, society wouldn't function. Should also be noted that racist pieces of garbage tend to congregate in certain areas, like Ferguson, but the only way to solve that is to get independent commissions in to release reports, and then do something about it. The commission got a report out, now Americans just have to push to get something done.

#3: Eh, I'm not unreasonably stubborn so I'll give you that.

Well thanks.

#4: I don't care what anyone says, the government is smarter than both you and I know. They're so smart in fact that they are reading this message and they're like "No one will believe this 'Lea' person because people like to believe in something that makes them feel good rather than the actual truth.". The government is actually the ones who planted bs stuff like this into your minds only to favor their needs. Answer me this question, where do you think all of the restricted guns go after Gun Control laws go into effect? Don't bother because it goes to the Army/Airforce/whatever and by those guns going to the army, then they can easily rain more hell upon neighboring continents while at the same, being able to conserve their funds.

The government only has as much power as people give them. No people, no taxes, no power. That very same "evil" government has been supporting suppressed minorities like the LGBT community at a federal level.

Governments aren't evil. It's what people allow them to do out of passivity or fear: That's evil.

#5: See!? And this is why we need guns so people won't have to resort to things like this. For all we know, we could've possibly maintained the outbreak had Gun Control laws been at a respectable level.

Oh the humanity! Oh the tragedy! Now I am a zombie at a keyboard, infused with four shots of Vodka, dreaming of fine Russian women!

 

[Aine]

I am of the opinion that guns don't hurt people; people hurt people. Bad people will always find a way to get to guns, so it makes no sense to prevent normal, law-abiding citizens from arming themselves. That being said, I do believe tighter control could prevent a lot of accidents. After all, guns are dangerous things and people who can't use them responsibly shouldn't be allowed to do so. I'm from the Czech Republic and I think we've got a good model for getting a gun license here. I'm in the process of currently getting my license, so I know the rules by heart.

First, you need to be 21 years old or older. Your criminal record needs to be clean. You have to be a 'reliable' person, which under our law means you can't be a drug user, an alcoholic and you can't commit minor offences. You need to pass a VERY thorough health inspection; you can not be mentally ill in any way and then there are also some physical illnesses that will make it impossible for you to get the license (stuff like epilepsy). If you fit these requirements, you still need to pass an exam. There are two parts of the exam, one is theoretical and one is practical. The theoretical part is a written test that encompasses everything from laws about guns to knowledge revolving around using them to first aid and everything in between. The practical exam is - you guessed it - meant to verify your skill with the gun. In order to get the license, you need to hit the target at least four times out of five tries. You also need to be able to manifest you can clean the gun safely and you have to identify small defects. After you pass the exam and pay the fee, you're finally permitted to wield guns! Well, not really. You're allowed to wield a small range of guns that are approved for 'public' use. No, you can not have AK-47 or a flame-thrower. Under any circumstances.

As I said, criminals will always acquire guns no matter what, but this should weed out stupid people who would inevitably harm/kill their loved ones accidentally.

... The funny thing is that while our laws are kinda strict when it comes to guns, our control of cold weapons is virtually non-existent. Yep, that's right. You can roam streets with a real sword and the police won't do anything unless you attempt to behead someone. We're all undercover knights in the Czech Republic. Every single citizen :D

 

[Hecatoncheires]

A'ight, since no-one's really talking about the elephant in the room, lemme take a stab at it.

America's troubles with things like school shootings are tied hand-in-hand with its fucking abysmal mental health services.

Me personally, I've got a cheeky wee mental condition. I also live in the UK, which means I have access to medication, support and counseling through our National Health Service. It's not perfect (far from it), but it does mean that for people like me (and people in far, far shittier mental states) there's a safety net in place to catch us and help us manage and live with our problems.

Mental health in the US, meanwhile, seems to be the domain of those who can afford it and nobody fucking else.

Everyone from veterans suffering from PTSD to guys grappling with really, really heavy shit like schizophrenia are kind of left to deal with these crippling illnesses by themselves, with no support if they don't happen to be well off enough to afford the going rates. And that's a hell of an entry barrier for vital health support: check out this handy chart from the Washington Post if you dun believe me:

PIE CHARTS INTENSIFY

The net result is that 45% of those not receiving mental health care who need it cite cost as the reason why they can't.

What does this have to do with shootings and other tragedies?

It's the mentally ill who carry out the attacks Nate Dawg was talking about in the first post. I don't want to name specific names (because I hate the focus modern society has on the perpetrators rather than the victims of these events), but I think you can all see the link between 'unstable mental condition' and 'murdering a bunch of folk for no discernible reason'. These people don't need condemned. They don't need to be monitored and treated like second-class citizens like some people in this thread seem to be implying.

They need help.

I'm not offering a catch-all solution here. No such solution for this kind of problem exists. But the idea that maybe we should be helping these men and women with devastating illnesses rather than just leaving them to rot shouldn't, in a civilised society, be so controversial.

 

[Dervish]

I gotta say, I'm impressed and rather delighted this has been a very productive and respectful conversation. I'm greatly enjoying everyone's input so far, and honestly, if the people in power were capable of talking like adults, we might actually get somewhere productive.

I'm getting the general vibe that people are widely considering guns themselves to not be the issue needing addressing, but rather the administrative end of things and targetting symptoms and causes in society more-so than banning guns, which I agree with wholeheartedly. Grumpy also has a pretty darn good point about addressing mental health services, and he's totally right that a lot of these infamous shooters were sick and didn't get the right treatment.

So Iwaku, Nate, thanks for showing sound judgement and polite, reasonable discussion ability for a topic I obviously feel very passionate about. You be good people.

 

[☆Luna☆]

This post is likely to be unforgivably long. I've also got a couple shots of Vodka in my system, so I might be in a bit of a ramble and rude. You have my apologies in advance, but here is my full, blunt opinion. If you want it summarized, here it is: Gun Control is factually proven to work. Australia has made that point clear. The low number of gun-related fatalities in countries with gun control makes that clear. Here's an amusing look at said gun laws by John Oliver, who is far more charismatic than I. I'm often dismayed by the black and white view of this issue. So, let me get a few bullet-points out of the way.

• Assault rifles should be legal to own. It's irrational to ban these when they make up a tiny fraction of fatalities in comparison to hand guns. Yes, that does happen to go against what Canada and Australia thinks, despite my using John Oliver's piece about Australia as an example in favour of gun control. You can either take that as hypocrisy, or critical honesty.
• Emphasis on control: Set up a licensing system so that those who want access to progressively deadlier or more exotic firearms need greater (but still reasonably acquirable) permissions in order to do so. Again, the likelihood that someone will go on a killing spree with a .50 calibre sniper versus a hand gun is miniscule.
• Set up tracers in firearms so that if one is reported missing or stolen, it can be found. "What if the government spies on me with it?!" To be blunt, the government is already spying on your Internet usage, phone calls, the phone itself, text messages, payroll, medical records, et cetera. If you sincerely draw the line at tracking your firearm in terms of privacy, you've got issues. Resolve those prior things first and then we can talk about removing tracers in your firearms.
• No, I don't believe gun control alone stops crime. Criminals will commit crime with or without firearms. However, just because a system doesn't completely prevent a crime, doesn't mean it has no impact on that crime. Just because we prosecute people for committing murder, doesn't mean people will stop committing murder. Just because we require people to have driver's licenses for motor vehicles, doesn't mean people won't drive drunk or break the law with them. If you argue against gun control for this reason, realize you can apply the exact same argument to driver's licenses. Except cars aren't instant death flingers.
• Maintain a national database (firearms registry) that details who owns what firearms. That way, if for some reason a person loses their certificate of ownership or similar document, they can simply bring 1-2 pieces of photo ID to a government office to reacquire it. Also useful in case the police impound a firearm off the street in cases of firearms reported missing or stolen.

#1: Fire is not an instant death flinger that can cause pinpoint murder, instantly, from several hundred feet away.
#2: Actually yes, lighting things on fire willy nilly is illegal. It's called arson. Whether you're lighting trees on fire, or buildings on fire, or anything that we could feasible use on fire--that is illegal. If you're in the middle of a drought, you can't even start campfires in your back yard.

So... Yes. Fire is illegal, except in certain, legally regulated circumstances. Like owning a box of matches to light your candle, or owning a hunting rifle to kill some deer.



Yes, crazy people do crazy fucking things. That is explicitly why horrible horrible land mines are generally not for sale. In fact, most first world countries don't even use them anymore, because it turns out leaving a whole field full of unkaboomed mines leaves many scattered children giblets several years running.

*was actually referring to the effect where the explosion of one car ignites nearby vehicles as opposed to a literal minefield*, but that was secondary to my point. The only reason I make the fire example is as an argument against the banning of all guns. I fully agree with your entire bulleted list(cwatIdidthar), but it doesn't change the problems that proposing stricted gun control can create.

1. I don't want it to ban guns that are currently legal without a compelling reason so that the owners of these guns are not penalized needlessly.
2. Ammunition restrictions are probably a little too strict on some guns, especially for people who use their gun for sport. I want people to be able to use the gun they have. If they are deemed fit to own a gun, why is ammo not part of the package, especially if they can prove they regularly shoot for sport?
3. I do not currently trust my representatives to construct the gun laws because they are encouraged to pander to either pro-gun or anti-gun groups.

If stricter gun control can avoid these pitfalls, then I welcome it.

 

[Jorick]

I haven't read through all the massive posts in this thread, so odds are good that others have brought up some of these points.

So, the thing about strict gun control in the United States is that coming along now and saying that things have to be more strictly regulated is that it's too late to be effective. There are already somewhere between 270 million and 310 million (depends on which estimate you look at) privately owned guns in the United States. Even if we were to completely halt sale of guns (which is the far extreme side of gun control) in the country, there are still literally millions of them hanging around to be potentially used in criminal acts. Putting in better screening measures, requiring background checks for all sales, making a national database of guns owned by people, and so forth would all be neat and maybe reduce the number of guns getting into the hands of people who would do bad things with them, but it's not gonna stop them from getting their hands on a gun if they're determined. You can put all the laws in place that you want, but criminals and people knowingly making shady sales for the quick cash aren't exactly going to conform to the laws governing gun sales. I support stricter laws for gun sales and ownership, but I am under no illusion that it will reduce violent crime, because determined criminals will find a way regardless of the law. Disregarding the law is kind of their thing, y'know? Strict gun control would at best keep guns out of the hands of some of the mentally ill folks who would do bad things with them and cause the black market for guns to become more profitable and thus more active. There's just no way given the current situation that stricter gun control in the US would do much at all to lower gun crime rates, so if that's your motive for wanting gun control then you're living in a fantasy land.

Now, if you wanna talk mass shooters, there's something all of them have in common aside from having access to guns. That thing, of course, is mental illness. These mass murderers are almost universally people who slipped through the cracks of the terrible mental health system in the United States, and then they snapped after a long while of lacking treatment for their conditions. It's not gun ownership or access to guns that cause people to go off the deep end and shoot up a school or a mall or whatnot, it's people with an untreated or poorly treated severe mental illness who also happens to have access to guns that complete the mass shooting formula. The mental health system in the United States is pure garbage, a for-profit industry rather than a system in place to help those in need, and this means that many of those who can't afford the costs of therapy sessions or medication end up going without them, even if they sorely need it. Looking at Grumpy's post, I see he already found a figure showing that of those in the US who need mental health care but do not receive it, 45% of them say that cost is the main thing keeping them from getting that help.

It's not about guns nearly so much as it is about mental health. Even if you took all the guns away, the United States's atrocious mental health system would still be a failure and people who cannot get proper treatment would still do awful things, they just might be with bombs or knives or their bare hands instead. Guns happen to be a very effective tool for those who wish to kill a lot of people in a short amount of time, but they don't cause people to go on these killing sprees, and their absence wouldn't prevent them. Sure, without guns the death and injury toll would be smaller, but the goal here should be to prevent these violent acts rather than to simply make them less potent. Stricter gun control wouldn't do that. Overhauling and vastly improving our mental health system though? Yeah, that might do the trick.

TL;DR Mass shootings are far more a mental health issue than a gun control issue.

 

[Dervish]

Actuallly. Sweden is number 9 in the guns per capita list.

Ah, didn't look into it. I had assumed that with what Koschei was saying Sweden was a lot more restrictive. And knowing is half the battle!

 

[Hatsune Candy]

I personally own six rifles and want to get a shotgun, but as an owner, allow me to try to alleviate your concerns about somebody who collects a lot of guns.

As I said earlier, firearms can be pretty expensive, and a collector likely has a good, well paying job and other than obvious reasons for not wanting to be a felon, wouldn't want to put his or her investment at risk of being seized if they suddenly get a criminal record. It doesn't mean they're crazy, it just means they like collecting different makes and models, sometimes for practical reasons, like ammunition availability, other times for more sentimental or themed reasons. It's kind of like how some people collect dozens of guitars; sure, they might only need one, but they have their reasons and the quantity doesn't mean a person's more crazy, it just means that's what they enjoy putting their income towards. My old CAO from my last job takes his sons shooting and they own several firearms, and mount some of them on display. The dude's running a major municipality and is the kindest, most gentle hearted man you could imagine and having met his sons, they're a wonderful family.

Myself, I own six rifles, as I said, and it's for a few different reasons:

My modern military rifle I bought because ammunition for it is inexpensive, which lets me take it to the range more often, and I want something rugged and practical for a variety of reasons. That, and I love how military weapons function and look. It's my prized possession and I absolutely adore it.

I own two WWII-era bolt-action rifles, purely because they have historical value and they're absolutely beautiful and weren't very expensive. The fact they're both proven designs that withstood two world wars and shaped history is something that means a lot to me, a history-loving guy who owns a lot of military books and had served briefly in the armed forces. It's my own way to connect to the past.

I own another Soviet service rifle that fires that same cartridge as the CZ 858 because it's both a historical rifle and dirt cheap. A big reason I got it was because it only cost me 200 dollars, and I also am preparing in case I ever have to surrender the CZ 858, which in itself is beautifully designed, simple, very accurate, and super easy to clean. Trust me, big reason I go for military models is because it rarely gets easier for maintenance.

And then the last gun I have is a semi-auto .22 that I bought because I wanted to get something that was both inexpensive to shoot (500 rounds for 40 bucks, can't beat that!) and super light on recoil so I could get my girlfriend into it. She's played paintball with me for years and we kind of share hobbies, so I wanted to kind of ease her into shooting with something that wasn't intimidating and easy to handle. She's since moved up to shooting most of my rifles comfortably and very proficiently; she actually beat me in a race to shoot a bottle at 500 meters with my military rifle!

So, anyways, I kind of hope that alleviates some of your worries about why people own a lot of guns. :) Put it this way, the guy buying the 50 dollar Chinese pistol in a van is more likely to shoot somebody than somebody who's been saving chunks off his pay cheques to afford something he really wants. I think that a lot of fear about guns comes from people not being really exposed to them and really being educated about them, and honestly, I'll take all the time in the world to talk to somebody about firearms to explain things they don't understand so they can be better informed and more comfortable. Honestly, the way forward is people talking to each other and explaining their points of view with respect and dignity about this, because it is a serious topic that needs to be addressed. I'd much rather listen to somebody who's anti-gun explain their perspective and opinions with respect than a pro-gun zealot who thinks the only way to live is to have a gun in every room in his house and every human being alive open carries an assault rifle.

Right, I figured I'd get a response like that; thanks for the info.

 

[ElBell]

EDIT: Why the hell am I the only teen to reply to any of this *~* Interesting

I haven't read this thread's long-ass posts, but as someone living in a state with pretty relaxed rules on firearms and obtaining them, I want to add in my own two-cents (that have probably already been shared by several other people here, oops). Feel free to skip over this since I'm probably restating a LOT of points and arguments xD

Guns are really just one of countless ways to hurt others. People who want to hurt other people will find a way, be it a gun, some rope, a knife, a fork, their own hands, even a cactus or some other plants could be used as a weapon if one wanted it to function that way badly enough. With this said, gun control to me is an issue that is in some senses pointless, but only when treated as the kind of control that means taking the item away from people entirely.

As I have said, it would be impossible to take away all potential weapons from people. Humans are creative, and the world is filled with objects we can use for terrible things if we want them used like that. Instead, I believe gun control in only the sense of blanket laws and careful regulation is acceptable. Anything else I thus far have considered is silly and essentially enabling those who are comfortable brushing aside law to get to what they want. A country wide set of laws on guns would be a big help, as would mental health checking.

However, mental health is not an unchanging thing. Maybe Billy was healthy when he went to get is handgun a few years back, but ever since his wife died? He just hasn't been the same man. Cases like his will unavoidably happen, but odds are it is a rarity and something we simply must accept will happen. I only make that situation clear to demonstrate that even check ups cannot solve it all, and to me are rather a stronger measure of prevention. I do not think routine checks are possible either, as that would be too much strain on the current system we have for doctors (but I may support such an idea should our medical system grow capable of properly handling it).

In response to mention of school shootings and their role in the issue, I think those have nothing to do with guns themselves either. Similar to criminals, if a teenager wishes to lash out in a classroom because of anger, stress, hatred, whatever else fuels them, they will find other methods if they cannot obtain a gun. I will stop here though, as my opinions on how to reform the school system and potentially ease this issue are an entirely other lengthly post belonging in another thread I may now make.

I think that's more than enough to say right now, and I think I covered everything I wanted to try and cover. Hopefully anyone who read this wasn't bored to death!

 

[Peter Feels]

WHY IS NO ONE MAKING BETTER SHIELDS AGAINST BULLETS?


Is my dying question.

 

[Dervish]

WHY IS NO ONE MAKING BETTER SHIELDS AGAINST BULLETS?


Is my dying question.

Because Captain America would sue the shit out of you for stealing his thunder.

 

[Hellis]

Ah, didn't look into it. I had assumed that with what Koschei was saying Sweden was a lot more restrictive. And knowing is half the battle!

IT's mainly rifles. We don't allow automatic weapons. SAdly, our one big killing spree was a alcoholic soldier who somehow was allowed back into regiment building, and stroll of with a machine gun.

 

[Torsty]

[...]To elaborate, I am a reserve officer for my country's navy and[...]

WHAAAAAAAAAT??!

I think I just had a stroke.

 

[Tegan]

WHAAAAAAAAAT??!

I think I just had a stroke.

No, I'm just making toast.

 

[Dervish]

IT's mainly rifles. We don't allow automatic weapons. SAdly, our one big killing spree was a alcoholic soldier who somehow was allowed back into regiment building, and stroll of with a machine gun.

Same with Canada, no automatics here unless they're grandfathered or you have a prohibited license, which usually comes with some form of very specific career. And yeah, my condolences. Even the safest, best off countries aren't immune to mass shootings. I just hope nobody I know ever gets caught up in something like that.

 

[Diana]

*POINTS AT ALL THE PEOPLE MAKING COMMENTS ABOUT MENTAL HEALTH BEING THE PROBLEM NOT THE GUNS*

That is my opinion!

Guns are dangerous because they are projectile flying bullet of doom things, like someone else said. O_O So there NEEDS to be some regulations for them, so not just anybody can go down to walmart and buy a gun, then accidentally shoot people in randomass daily life situations because they are untrained and uneducated. This is a practical and intelligent law to have.

I don't believe in TOO STRICT gun laws. If I want a gun for whatever reason, I should have the right to own one. Guns are NOT so dangerous that they can't be owned and used responsibly. As we can see from some in thread examples, there are plenty of cool people that own and collect guns without being bumblefuck stupid about them! <3

The real issue is WHY gun violence is so common. :( It's not because there's a ton of guns in the system (though yes, more access does increase the odds of them being used). In America, our health, education, and justice systems are FUCKED UP. Fucked up so bad that it's really starting to bite our country in the ass now. >> People who are uneducated and can't get access to basic healthcare for their bodies and minds (and other necessities for living) end up doing illegal things just to SURVIVE. Throw in poor lower class crazy people in the mix too. They end up in jail, they get put back out again, back in jail, back out. RARELY in this process do they get access to education or healthcare. :(

It's pretty much a recipe for disaster. >>

 

[☆Luna☆]

*POINTS AT ALL THE PEOPLE MAKING COMMENTS ABOUT MENTAL HEALTH BEING THE PROBLEM NOT THE GUNS*

That is my opinion!

Guns are dangerous because they are projectile flying bullet of doom things, like someone else said. O_O So there NEEDS to be some regulations for them, so not just anybody can go down to walmart and buy a gun, then accidentally shoot people in randomass daily life situations because they are untrained and uneducated. This is a practical and intelligent law to have.

I don't believe in TOO STRICT gun laws. If I want a gun for whatever reason, I should have the right to own one. Guns are NOT so dangerous that they can't be owned and used responsibly. As we can see from some in thread examples, there are plenty of cool people that own and collect guns without being bumblefuck stupid about them! <3

The real issue is WHY gun violence is so common. :( It's not because there's a ton of guns in the system (though yes, more access does increase the odds of them being used). In America, our health, education, and justice systems are FUCKED UP. Fucked up so bad that it's really starting to bite our country in the ass now. >> People who are uneducated and can't get access to basic healthcare for their bodies and minds (and other necessities for living) end up doing illegal things just to SURVIVE. Throw in poor lower class crazy people in the mix too. They end up in jail, they get put back out again, back in jail, back out. RARELY in this process do they get access to education or healthcare. :(

It's pretty much a recipe for disaster. >>

According to a study done by the Bureau of Justice:

Among state prisoners released in 30 states in 2005, about two-thirds (67.8%) of released prisoners were arrested for a new crime within 3 years, and three-quarters (76.6%) were arrested within 5 years.

 

[Diana]

According to a study done by the Bureau of Justice:

Among state prisoners released in 30 states in 2005, about two-thirds (67.8%) of released prisoners were arrested for a new crime within 3 years, and three-quarters (76.6%) were arrested within 5 years.

Yep. :( I know several people that have been in and out of jail for various reasons. (Usually drugs and theft.) They go to jail, and they get back out they can't seem to get a job because they're now a criminal and no one wants to hire them. So they can't pay their legal fees, fines, or for basic life necessities like bills, a vehicle etc. They can't pay to go back to school. They can't pay for doctors if they get sick or need to see a therapist. In order to pay their bills they end up dealing drugs again, stealing, etc. (Or they end up on welfare which is another problem system!)

And inevitably they go right back to jail where the process repeats all over again. Over time these people end up in dangerous places and situations. Stuff gets more desperate and more violent every time the process repeats. @___@

 

[☆Luna☆]

Yep. :( I know several people that have been in and out of jail for various reasons. (Usually drugs and theft.) They go to jail, and they get back out they can't seem to get a job because they're now a criminal and no one wants to hire them. So they can't pay their legal fees, fines, or for basic life necessities like bills, a vehicle etc. They can't pay to go back to school. They can't pay for doctors if they get sick or need to see a therapist. In order to pay their bills they end up dealing drugs again, stealing, etc. (Or they end up on welfare which is another problem system!)

And inevitably they go right back to jail where the process repeats all over again. Over time these people end up in dangerous places and situations. Stuff gets more desperate and more violent every time the process repeats. @___@

So long as people believe jail is about punishment rather than correction, I can't see this process changing.