4 ms·

> (in non-crime scenarios, e.g. domestic abuse, mass shootings, etc) I don't understand your parenthetical assertion that domestic abuse and mass shootings are

> (in non-crime scenarios, e.g. domestic abuse, mass shootings, etc) I don't understand your parenthetical assertion that domestic abuse and mass shootings are not crime. Of course, they certainly are crime.

coldtea 7y ago
>I don't understand your parenthetical assertion that domestic abuse and mass shootings are not crime. Of course, they certainly are crime. My point is to separate the actions done by career criminals, (organized crime, burglars, gangs, drug dealers, the mob, etc). As opposed to a casual, accidental, one of, not intended, breaking of the law (even if they committed crime) by an ordinary person who doesn't live off of crime. (Perhaps the distinction is more powerful in my language, but I think there's a distinction in casual conversation in English too. E.g. you'd call someone who abuses their spouse a "wife beater", or "creep", or "abuser" or several other terms, but you wouldn't say that they lead "a life of crime" (even tho domestic abuse is a crime). The same way you usually wouldn't call a mass shooter a "criminal", but a "deranged person", "psychopath", "terrorist", etc). If I say "criminal" or "outlaw" for example, does that bring in mind someone deep in crime, or a person involved in a DUI? Anyway, my point is, in a total gun ban, you'll still have the gang/career criminal/etc people have guns and you could even have the same amount of gun crime of that type as now, but you'd have much less murders within a family, mass shootings, etc... -- as it would be way more difficult for lawful people to get their hands on guns, have them casually at home, and e.g. use them on a sudden rage against their spouse or parents or whatever. (I'd say even the career criminal type of crimes will be less -- criminals will also have a worse and harder supply of guns).

coldtea 7y ago

>I don't understand your parenthetical assertion that domestic abuse and mass shootings are not crime. Of course, they certainly are crime. My point is to separate the actions done by career criminals, (organized crime, burglars, gangs, drug dealers, the mob, etc). As opposed to a casual, accidental, one of, not intended, breaking of the law (even if they committed crime) by an ordinary person who doesn't live off of crime. (Perhaps the distinction is more powerful in my language, but I think there's a distinction in casual conversation in English too. E.g. you'd call someone who abuses their spouse a "wife beater", or "creep", or "abuser" or several other terms, but you wouldn't say that they lead "a life of crime" (even tho domestic abuse is a crime). The same way you usually wouldn't call a mass shooter a "criminal", but a "deranged person", "psychopath", "terrorist", etc). If I say "criminal" or "outlaw" for example, does that bring in mind someone deep in crime, or a person involved in a DUI? Anyway, my point is, in a total gun ban, you'll still have the gang/career criminal/etc people have guns and you could even have the same amount of gun crime of that type as now, but you'd have much less murders within a family, mass shootings, etc... -- as it would be way more difficult for lawful people to get their hands on guns, have them casually at home, and e.g. use them on a sudden rage against their spouse or parents or whatever. (I'd say even the career criminal type of crimes will be less -- criminals will also have a worse and harder supply of guns).