Just as a quick note on the death penalty thing. By definition of "murder" -- the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought (Merriam-Webster, emphasis mine) -- "state-sanctioned murder" is a contradiction in terms. If someone is executed by the state in accordance to the law, they are executed, killed, put to death, etc..., but never murdered.
|
Chicago Gun Ban Case
|
Also, gun bans are immoral and anyone attempting to implement one should be tried with massive 'endangering the public' or similar.
"No can brain today. Want cheezeburger." From NGE: Nobody Dies, by Gregg Landsman http://www.fanfiction.net/s/5579457/1/NGE_Nobody_Dies
Hrm. Some arguements can apply. Some dude trying for a gun-grab can really ruin your day, for example... but then again, I believe that an armed society is a polite one.
I'm continually amused by how much debate there is over something so utterly irrelevant. ^_^
=========== =============================================== "V, did you do something foolish?" "Yes, and it was glorious." Ayiekie Wrote:Timote Wrote:It's a matter of opinion. I don't think the death penalty is the answer to every murder conviction. More for people who are serial killers, massmurders, or the rare nutjob that revels in their deeds. The rabid dogs who, if released, are likely to kill again. If the person gets enough 'consecutive life sentences without parole' that he's garunteed to die in prison, then execute him, and be done with it.It is, however, not a matter of opinion that the death penalty does not in fact reduce crime levels. This is simply fact, as borne out time and time again in the real world. What you get past that point is the ethics of state-sanctioned murder, which does become more of a matter of opinion. However, it is also not a matter of opinion but simple fact that innocent people will be murdered if there is a death penalty, and since the death penalty does absolutely no good whatsoever, I cannot think of any logical reason to support it. As far as the Death Penalty not acting as a deterant, of course not when the punishment is delayed 10+ years. That's like punishing a dog for crapping on the carpet, but waiting a week before you do so. The punishment and the 'crime' aren't linked in the minds of the punished or observers. When I can commit a crime, get sent to prison and live better in there than I can out of out of prison, it's more of a encouragement than a deterrant. If prisons are so ineffective, then what do you suggest society do to those who break the law? Shake your finger at them and say 'that's bad, now play nice'? If there's no punishment for breaking the law, then it's not a law, it's a suggestion. ___________________________ "I've always wanted to be somebody, but I should have been more specific." - George Carlin
Uhm... Whyfore would you consider the banning of firearms irrelevent? That's like saying an open flame has no relevance to a propane tank.
Civil order and liberty exist as separate though related factors within any given society, but neither correlates with the 'disarmament' of the citizenry. A violent and disorganized society will be so regardless of whether any given thug has a gun, a knife, or simply a rock picked up three seconds before the act. Compared to internal security apparati and the organizational superiority of real combat troops, the difficulty of acquiring illegal arms is at most a trivial factor in any popular insurrection.
People who have a need for guns will acquire them, human nature and the presence of black markets being what they are, and people who don't, won't, not even from the corner drugstore. I, and the vast majority of those like me who are lucky enough to live someplace peaceable, have no earthly need of such a thing. Criminals, who live their lives in the expectation of violence, will seek them out no matter how firmly they're outlawed. No amount of bleating about principles and the second amendment will change these facts. Go look at the education or news systems if you want to find a place your energy and outrage will actually accomplish something. =========== =============================================== "V, did you do something foolish?" "Yes, and it was glorious." Wiredgeek Wrote:Also, gun bans are immoral and anyone attempting to implement one should be tried with massive 'endangering the public' or similar.Well, once again where do you draw the line on what a "gun" consists of: A handgun? A rifle? A fully automatic assualt rifle? A rocket propelled gernade? An artillery piece? A nuclear bomb? Everyone who isn't insane considered some level of control of arms to be a good thing. Otherwise I really hope you practice what you preach and consider Iranians getting nuclear weapons to be 100% kosher. Nobody in this thread is supporting a 100% lockdown on all firearms. The most radical suggestion is that firearms be liscensed and registered the same way motor vehicles are and that can hardly be argued against. ------------------- Epsilon Timote Wrote:As far as the Death Penalty not acting as a deterant, of course not when the punishment is delayed 10+ years. That's like punishing a dog for crapping on the carpet, but waiting a week before you do so. The punishment and the 'crime' aren't linked in the minds of the punished or observers.Your argument is wrong. Your argument is incredibly wrong. It is severely wrong in every way that matters. For my evidence I present: Canada. We have no death penalty and yet we have a less than half the murders (per capita) then the United States does. In fact, every modern western nation which has no death penalty has less murders per capita than the United States does. Every single one. Your argument simply do not hold up to that thing called "facts" or "evidence". No matter how much you scream and rail against us molly-coddling prisoners the methodology of countries that treat prisoners humanely is simply, demonstrably better than the way the US handles things. ---------------- Epsilon NifT Wrote:Just as a quick note on the death penalty thing. By definition of "murder" -- the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought (Merriam-Webster, emphasis mine) -- "state-sanctioned murder" is a contradiction in terms. If someone is executed by the state in accordance to the law, they are executed, killed, put to death, etc..., but never murdered.It is only a contradiction if you believe states have the right to kill people - more accurately, to absolve other people from killing people in cold blood who pose no threat to them. Since I don't, it is indeed literally state-sanctioned murder. But if you like, I'll use "state-sanctioned killing" instead. Wiredgeek Wrote:Also, gun bans are immoral and anyone attempting to implement one should be tried with massive 'endangering the public' or similar.Why? Would you care to explain your reasoning? To be more specific, I'd like to know why it is intrinsically "immoral" (presumably even if such a law has the support of the public?), and why you think it inherently endangers the public. Timote Wrote:As far as the Death Penalty not acting as a deterant, of course not when the punishment is delayed 10+ years. That's like punishing a dog for crapping on the carpet, but waiting a week before you do so. The punishment and the 'crime' aren't linked in the minds of the punished or observers.I would argue that certain crimes are in fact linked with the death penalty in the public imagination in the United States (murder especially). As I said before, the reason it isn't a deterrent is because people do not generally commit crimes while weighing the consequences of being caught (either because they do not believe they will be caught, or because they are only thinking of the moment). Also, your analogy is invalid. Dogs do not know what you're punishing them for a week later because they are dogs. Nobody, least of all OJ Simpson, had forgotten what OJ Simpson was on trial for, despite how long it took for a verdict to be reached - and nobody had forgotten by the second civil trial, either. I will repeat what I said before that if is better living in your jails than out of them, then this is more damning of your society than your jails. In any case, it is certainly not true that United States prisons are luxurious. Even the "white collar" prisons, of which such a description is still dubious, can hardly be considered an upgrade to the lifestyle of the sort of people (rich corrupt businessmen) who typically go to them. Do you have any evidence at all to suggest that significant numbers of people are deliberately going to jail? This all ignores the fact, of course, that as I noted above most people do not expect to get caught when committing crimes. This is why increasing sentences invariably fails to lower crime rates, despite how well it plays with the "get tough with criminals" crowd. Finally, I never said prisons were ineffective per se. I said that making them miserable in an attempt to "punish" people was ineffective. If you had read my post, you would have noticed I argued that the point of prisons and the justice system in general is to protect the innocent - and I said that this is best done by separating incurably dangerous people (Charles Manson, let's say) from the public, but for the vast majority of prisoners who are not incurably insane, the main purpose is to reduce recidivism. It's been proven many times over that allowing people to educate, train and improve themselves in prison hugely reduces the rate at which they commit crimes upon their release. This is not ivory-tower theorising, but actually how things are done in many parts of the world. And without exception, they work far better than systems designed around "punishing the guilty" as its main goal. Ayiekie Wrote:I just assumed he was trolling.Wiredgeek Wrote:Also, gun bans are immoral and anyone attempting to implement one should be tried with massive 'endangering the public' or similar.Why? Would you care to explain your reasoning? To be more specific, I'd like to know why it is intrinsically "immoral" (presumably even if such a law has the support of the public?), and why you think it inherently endangers the public. Valles Wrote:Civil order and liberty exist as separate though related factors within any given society, but neither correlates with the 'disarmament' of the citizenry. A violent and disorganized society will be so regardless of whether any given thug has a gun, a knife, or simply a rock picked up three seconds before the act. Compared to internal security apparati and the organizational superiority of real combat troops, the difficulty of acquiring illegal arms is at most a trivial factor in any popular insurrection.My, it was a busy day!  I would have to disagree with your argument. Easy access to firearms makes a dangerous society far more dangerous than it otherwise would be. And while it is certainly true that some criminals can get hold of illegal firearms, it is not true that this will lead to the same amount of usage of firearms as happens when they are easy and legal to acquire. In Britain and Japan, where guns are extremely hard to obtain, the level of gun crime as a percentage of all crime is very low compared to countries such as the United States. And virtually any weapon is less likely to kill a victim than a gun is. If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them... but they'll have a lot less. This does make a statistically significant difference.
Well, let's see,
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288 Kennesaw mandated gun ownership, and violent crime plummeted. Morton Grove banned guns, and crime skyrocketed. Makes sense to me. That real world thing applies pretty good to the real world. "No can brain today. Want cheezeburger." From NGE: Nobody Dies, by Gregg Landsman http://www.fanfiction.net/s/5579457/1/NGE_Nobody_Dies
Statistical outliers happen.
Once again, look at the crime rates for the world in general. The data simply does not bear out in support of your stance. ----------------- Epsilon
Cite your source?
"No can brain today. Want cheezeburger." From NGE: Nobody Dies, by Gregg Landsman http://www.fanfiction.net/s/5579457/1/NGE_Nobody_Dies
Actually, don't bother.
I'm going to be far too busy registering and securing all my bleach and ammonia, as well as every knife in the house, as well as all of the fertilizer. I'm working on a way to properly register the nitrogen in the ground, but I've got nothing so far. The gas in my car and the pack of smokes in my pocket are gonna have to be registered as well, shit. So yeah, this is a thread flounce. I am out of spoons here. I think I'm going to go shooting tomorrow. "No can brain today. Want cheezeburger." From NGE: Nobody Dies, by Gregg Landsman http://www.fanfiction.net/s/5579457/1/NGE_Nobody_Dies Wiredgeek Wrote:Well, let's see,Worldnetdaily, really? Ooh, let's see what else is there! "I blame Bush for Stalincare." "How Team Obama Plans To Steal The 2010 Election." "Americans Condemn Obama's Rudeness, Reach Out To Israel." "Obama Zombies." You know, I'm open to being convinced that gun control does not have a positive effect on violent crime, but you are not going to convince anybody of anything with a horseshit propaganda rag like that. Or by rambling, possibly trolling ranting about registering your ammonia and nitrogen. Wiredgeek Wrote:Cite your source?http://www.nationmaster.c...crime-murders-per-capita First link on google. ---------------- Epsilon Wiredgeek Wrote:Actually, don't bother.That strawman is reeling from your reductio ad absurdum. ------------------- Epsilon
While I'm not quite certain anyone is doing this now, I don't think you can directly compare any deterrent effect (or lack thereof) of the death penalty to that of general gun availability. There's a distinct difference between considering the idea that one might successfully commit a crime, get caught, convicted, and eventually executed, vs. the idea that one might try to commit a crime and get plugged by their erstwhile victim. (And I think I've read things suggesting that the fear of injury might be just as important as the fear of death in this sort of case.)
Valles Wrote:Compared to internal security apparati and the organizational superiority of real combat troops, the difficulty of acquiring illegal arms is at most a trivial factor in any popular insurrection. I'll ask the same question I always have when I see this line of argument: Why do you assume that half the real combat troops aren't going to be supporting the insurrection? (Although you could argue if that's the right word, since in the usual scenario it's the government that's revolting against the established order...) Epsilon Wrote:For my evidence I present: Canada. We have no death penalty and yet we have a less than half the murders (per capita) then the United States does. In fact, every modern western nation which has no death penalty has less murders per capita than the United States does. I'm not sure where you're going with this, since you're not suggesting a way to separate the effect of having the death penalty from all the other factors. (Unless you're suggesting that the US has more murders because of the death penalty, which seems unlikely.) -Morgan. Quote:Morganni wrote:I'm not suggesting it has MORE because of the death penalty but you certainly can't say it has LESS. -------------- Epsilon
Look, you want a prime example of gun control failing to curb violent crime? Look no further than London, where the police there have to wear kevlar vests with something like chain male embedded into them because it's not the damn guns they're worried about, it's the knives and shivs they deal with instead.
And why is it knives and shivs? Because the guns are banned. So they use knives and shivs instead. So, it just goes to show you, no amount of banning weapons of any sort is gonna fix anything. You want to bring down crime in your area, then quit trying to be cheap and do the following: - Give more money to your cops - Put money into fixing the slums (and by that I don't mean displacing the people that live there to build a new develement) - For God's sake, fix the schools! Doing the above attracts more business to your city. More business means more jobs. More jobs means more people are employed. More employed people means more taxpayers. And that is how you recoop your losses. Sure, it takes a while to pull off, but the benefits are there. Besides, any idiot that plays a good game of Sim City should know this. This is why I feel that any government that feels it needs to tighten the noose on Gun Control is not really doing it's job right. If you're having trouble with gangs with guns, then you need to do something about the root cause. We all know this because unless guns are outlawed throughout the US outright (not gonna happen) they will still find ways to get their guns, and it will most likely be through the black-hat channels. Guns are not the problem. You can show me any shot up baby or grandmother, and I will feel bad about them... but the instant their relatives get in my face about gun control, I'm gonna ask them about criminals that shot their loved ones and what caused that person to go the way they did. It's a bit cold hearted, yes, but people need to face the facts. And don't go there with me. If it was one of my kids, I'd be beating down the doors of City Hall and demanding to know why the Police have not been doing or unable to do their jobs (whatever the case may be). If they cannot answer me to my satisfaction, then that's when I go on a campaign calling for the loss of confidence in our civic leaders. The system will work as long as people come out and say, "That is enough. You're fired. Bring on the next round of applicants." Epsilon Wrote:Quote:Morganni wrote:I'm not suggesting it has MORE because of the death penalty but you certainly can't say it has LESS. I don't feel I can say it has either one. Too many confounding variables. (Kind of my point, really.) (Also, I've now fixed the really broken quoting in my previous reply.) -Morgan. |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)