How are defining "harm" here? I have minimal permanent, what would usually be considered bodily injuries, but I have chronic complex PTSD, which is a psychological injury that physically changes the brain in an injurious fashion - and it can be disabling. Common causes for PTSD include such things as rape.Kelly Jones wrote:If one practises reason most, then one can let people do whatever they like with one's body, so long as it doesn't do them any harm.
Why do you believe that the elimination of delusions is so difficult?sschaula wrote:S: I also believe that none of us are perfect in it, or capable of perfecting that wisdom. Therefore, we shouldn't be called "wise" or "enlightened".
K: [Why not say...] "I am not sure whether it will occur or has occurred, so let's just see what happens...."
S: That is what I say. And I add - "It's highly unlikely to ever happen...so unlikely, that I believe it never has or will."
Why are you so attached to the idea that people can become perfect?
Would you prefer:Scott Schauland wrote:K: In general terms, no national culture is characterised by either, because 99.9999999999% of people aren't conscious enough for either.
Scott: Why are these David Quinn antics so popular? In my opinion, this type of talk stops all thinking.
Owning and using guns has no meaning in itself. It is only when it's regarded as a God-given right, or even just a "right", that it becomes a problem. That belief is delusional, seeing that rights are determined by values.ChochemV2 wrote:K: Restricting popular access to weapons can diminish the enjoyment of spiritual ignorance, in the same way that a bully or a bullshitter, who is challenged, doesn't enjoy being a bully quite so much. It's not so easy anymore.
C: That's assuming willful ignorance is somehow supported by gun ownership, I just don't see the connection.
A total idiot is looked after by others, so they don't do any harm to themselves. When such a person becomes violent, and escapes from carers, then it needs to be retrieved by trained experts, who will not use excessive force.K: If one practises reason most, then one can let people do whatever they like with one's body, so long as it doesn't do them any harm.
C: That's what we are talking about here, harm. How do you reason with someone who has no capability for reason?
The weakness of a crazed, angry person is his love of the power of dark and ugly thoughts. If these thoughts and what they drive him to do, doesn't bring him absolute power, then he will discard it for something that does. For instance, if he sees that someone is not disturbed by his power tripping. Then he will see his own power as insufficient.I consider rape to be harm, I consider murder to be harm, I consider unlawful intrusion to be harm. In all of these instances the criminal is imposing his will on someone else and reason doesn't influence his actions so how would reason stop him?
This American report about the likely causes for the dramatic drop in American crime rates in the '90s states that "higher rates of handgun ownership, which represent about one-third of all rearms, may be a causal factor in violent crime rates".C: and guns are used every day (maybe hundreds or thousands of times a day) in self defense which leads me to believe people's fear of being molested is entirely justified.
K: Do the numbers grow, or lessen? That is the question to answer here.
C: Do some research, I'd be interested to know the answer to that question.
Is a total idiot a criminal?K: Just as a standard definition may not be truthful, so also a law may also not be truthful, in which case it's reasonable to break and replace it. So, I define crime to be anti-truthfulness.
C: As long as you realize I define crime to be breaking the law. You know, theft, murder, rape, etc.
If the crazy person is not at all susceptible to reasoning, then he should be treated as a total idiot. One would stop trying to reason, and apply adequate force, to stop him doing anything that might have an unhelpful effect on one's own consciousness.K: For example, a reasonable person, when confronted by some crazy person shouting "God tells me to kill you", will probably do his best to prevent being killed, while remaining free from a similar superstition.
By contrast, an unreasonable person, in the same situation, will be extremely agitated, perhaps use excessive force, and believe that he also has a God-given right to kill the attacker. So, the crime - the criminal belief - lives on in him.
C: But you've still left out some rather important parts such as: how does the "reasonable person" defend himself while still remaining reasonable?
A better option is to disarm a total idiot, as the above link described.Also, in a situation where one person means to kill you killing that person really ceases to be excessive force.
The state gives us this "right" to own guns and it's one of the foundation beliefs in this country. America has a history which is closely tied to guns and Americans don't react kindly when the rights granted to them by the government are whisked away without reason, or for reasons which cannot be substantiated.Owning and using guns has no meaning in itself. It is only when it's regarded as a God-given right, or even just a "right", that it becomes a problem. That belief is delusional, seeing that rights are determined by values.
That's wonderful but the situation you posited involved someone intending to kill you. If someone has a gun pointed at you and intends to kill you saying "Where are the trained professionals who can disable this mad man?" out loud doesn't save your life.A total idiot is looked after by others, so they don't do any harm to themselves. When such a person becomes violent, and escapes from carers, then it needs to be retrieved by trained experts, who will not use excessive force.
As you asked me to direct my posts to whomever is quoted, can I ask you to simply say what you mean? If you mean "a crack head wants to kill you" then say that not "a total idiot wants to kill you", it would make the conversation much easier to follow.We need to include as a "total idiot" someone who is on a drug high, like cocaine or crack.
It also says:This American report about the likely causes for the dramatic drop in American crime rates in the '90s states that "higher rates of handgun ownership, which represent about one-third of all rearms, may be a causal factor in violent crime rates".
There is, however, little or no evidence that changes in gun control laws in the 1990s can account for falling crime.
Given the realities of an active black market in guns (Cook, Molliconi and Cole, 1995), the apparent ineffectiveness of gun control laws should not come as a great surprise to economists. Even in the late 1980s, prior to the Brady Act, only
about one-Ž fth of prisoners reported obtaining their guns through licensed gun dealers (Wright and Rossi, 1994).
According to the author gun control shows little or now impact on gun violence specifically because of the black market gun trade in the US. The guns are already out there and the criminals aren't buying them legally.More stringent gun-control policies such as bans on handgun acquisition passed in Washington, D.C., in 1976 and the ban on handgun ownership in Chicago in 1982 do not seem to have reduced crime, either.
And I have no problem with increasing punishment for gun crimes because it specifically targets criminals and not law-abiding gun owners, as gun control does.It also states that, if the costs of using guns in the commission of actual crimes were raised, on a large scale - say, nationally - as opposed to targeting ownership, gun crime would be more effectively reduced. It suggests such costs might be: more imprisonments, legalising abortion (costing a likely murderer its life), increasing numbers of police, and stopping drug epidemics.
Illegal drug users are criminals, assuming you haven't reverted to the dictionary definition of "idiot". In that case, a foolish person isn't a criminal unless he or she breaks the law.Is a total idiot a criminal?
I'm not arguing that disarming someone is the better option. I said that in a situation where someone is trying to kill you lethal force is justified. You even seemed to agree with me admitting you wouldn't refrain from killing someone if you judged it was necessary.A better option is to disarm a total idiot, as the above link described.
Iolaus wrote:Because of the St. Batholomew's Day massacre, which lead to the second amendment.Why do you think it is so important that people own guns,
It's true that more developed complex organisms (say, humans with white skin) compete far more successfully for resources, and determine which resources are cultivated. Using guns is a way of getting at resources, whether that is to kill an animal, or kill a competitor, or to kill one intent on killing one. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with this.Tomas wrote:Guns will always be available. Gee, the paramilitaries of South America (amazonia rainforests) have nothing better to do than depopulate the native Indians from their homelands. No people? well well, who then has title to the lands? why, the Patent Office of the respective 'host nation'.
Look no further than what Great Britain, France, Portugal, Spain did here in the North Americas. Clean out the "natives" presto chango, the patent office divides all into townships.... no peoples, no cear titles to the "virgin" lands...
You (Kelly) dumb nut, what you think happened with the Aborigine of Australia? Starve them, shoot them, mollify them to white culture. The white man IS the devil seed.
Guns will always be available and even more lethal after you and i have gone on to the happy hunting grounds. A little depleted uranium dust does the body good.
I see this signature as a tool that you've designed and used according to your ideas and values. Since all values are created by reason (or lack thereof), they can change.
Tomas (the tank)
Prince of Jerusalem
16 Degree
Scottish Rite Free Mason
This is a delusional belief, with no rational basis.K: Owning and using guns has no meaning in itself. It is only when it's regarded as a God-given right, or even just a "right", that it becomes a problem. That belief is delusional, seeing that rights are determined by values.
C: The state gives us this "right" to own guns and it's one of the foundation beliefs in this country.
It's interesting that the many different excuses, offered for supporting the usage and ownership of guns in America, in this thread, boil down to this:America has a history which is closely tied to guns and Americans don't react kindly when the rights granted to them by the government are whisked away without reason, or for reasons which cannot be substantiated.
This is called awareness of consequences, so it may save lives. Being aware of how a situation may unfold does prepare intelligent persons.K: A total idiot is looked after by others, so they don't do any harm to themselves. When such a person becomes violent, and escapes from carers, then it needs to be retrieved by trained experts, who will not use excessive force.
Ch: That's wonderful but the situation you posited involved someone intending to kill you. If someone has a gun pointed at you and intends to kill you saying "Where are the trained professionals who can disable this mad man?" out loud doesn't save your life.
They are exactly the same thing. You said something like, "a person who you can't reason with".K: We need to include as a "total idiot" someone who is on a drug high, like cocaine or crack.
C: As you asked me to direct my posts to whomever is quoted, can I ask you to simply say what you mean? If you mean "a crack head wants to kill you" then say that not "a total idiot wants to kill you", it would make the conversation much easier to follow.
Yes, I read that. It's not strictly true though, because the article also states that crime fell when laws were passed to put more people who used guns to commit crimes in prison. That is really a law that controls gun usage, as it's a deterrent.K: This American report about the likely causes for the dramatic drop in American crime rates in the '90s states that "higher rates of handgun ownership, which represent about one-third of all rearms, may be a causal factor in violent crime rates".
C: It also says:
There is, however, little or no evidence that changes in gun control laws in the 1990s can account for falling crime.
Yes. But look at the bigger picture. Potential criminals obtain guns in the same society that has prisons, police officers, abortion clinics, orphanages, juvenile detention centres, and drug rehabiliation wards.Given the realities of an active black market in guns (Cook, Molliconi and Cole, 1995), the apparent ineffectiveness of gun control laws should not come as a great surprise to economists. Even in the late 1980s, prior to the Brady Act, only
about one-Ž fth of prisoners reported obtaining their guns through licensed gun dealers (Wright and Rossi, 1994).
You left out the rest of the paragraph:More stringent gun-control policies such as bans on handgun acquisition passed in Washington, D.C., in 1976 and the ban on handgun ownership in Chicago in 1982 do not seem to have reduced crime, either.
In other words, research hasn't been completed. Likely as not, there hasn't been enough funding.While initial research suggested a bene cial impact of the D.C. gun ban (Loftin, McDowall, Weirsema and Cottey, 1991), when the city of Baltimore is used as a control group, rather than the affluent Washington suburbs, the apparent benefits of the gun ban disappear(Britt, Kleck and Bordua, 1996). Although no careful analysis of Chicago’s gun ban
has been carried out, the fact that Chicago has been a laggard in the nationwide homicide decline argues against any large impact of the law. From a theoretical perspective, policies that raise the costs of using guns in the commission of actual
crimes, as opposed to targeting ownership, would appear to be a more effective approach to reducing gun crime (for instance, Kessler and Levitt, 1999). The most prominent of these programs, Project Exile, which provides prison sentence en-
hancements for gun offenders, however, has been convincingly demonstrated to be ineffective by Raphael and Ludwig (2003), apparently in part because of the small scale on which it was carried out.
Again, the bigger picture is that gun control laws are an umbrella that encompasses all gun usage, both legal and illegal. The current perspective, which is popular from the look of things, is that gun control laws are only relevant to those who are likely to obey them.According to the author gun control shows little or now impact on gun violence specifically because of the black market gun trade in the US. The guns are already out there and the criminals aren't buying them legally.
Well, I hope the guns are confiscated when arrested, and while in prison.1.) An increase in the number of police
2.) Rising prison population
3.) The receding crack epidemic
4.) Legalizing abortion
These are four things which address the culture of violence and punishment of criminals and not taking away the weapons that criminals choose to use.
If someone is aware that hard drug use is likely to cause them to become violent as well as totally idiotic, and they go on to use the drugs, then they are a criminal.K: Is a total idiot a criminal?
C: Illegal drug users are criminals, assuming you haven't reverted to the dictionary definition of "idiot". In that case, a foolish person isn't a criminal unless he or she breaks the law.
It sounds rational to me.K: A better option is to disarm a total idiot, as the above link described.
C: I'm not arguing that disarming someone is the better option.
"Lethal force" is just a euphemism for "kill them".I said that in a situation where someone is trying to kill you lethal force is justified.
Only if they can't be disarmed.You even seemed to agree with me admitting you wouldn't refrain from killing someone if you judged it was necessary.
No, it's a fact of life which must be dealt with and for now there are people who say what we can do and rules which society has set. There are ways of changing the law but you'd have to prove it would make a difference.This is a delusional belief, with no rational basis.
Just because a group of people says, "Here, you can do so-and-so", doesn't mean you can always do so-and-so.
I'm still looking for proof that a gun ban or greater restriction will actually make a difference. As with above, it's fine to say "Without guns there will be no gun deaths" but much more difficult to make gun disappear.It's very short-sighted and hellish. Very much coming out of a Merged Void mentality.
Once again, that's wonderful, but beside the point. Cops take time to get to a scene, disarming a criminal is above the skill level of the average person, and someone who means to harm you isn't easily reasoned with.As the old saw goes, prevention is better than cure. Better to deal with it a long, long time before it happens.
Once again, that isn't the point. I'm asking for you to use generally accepted definitions instead which everyone will understand instead of your specialized definitions which need explanation.They are exactly the same thing. You said something like, "a person who you can't reason with".
And, once again, gun control laws refer to laws which are meant to restrict the sale and use of firearms. The author is clearly making the distinction between "gun control" and punishment laws in his analysis.Yes, I read that. It's not strictly true though, because the article also states that crime fell when laws were passed to put more people who used guns to commit crimes in prison. That is really a law that controls gun usage, as it's a deterrent.
As above, you seem to be suffering from a disconnect between gun control laws and punishment laws.So even though the potential criminal may not seem to come under gun control laws, there are many ways to communicate the cost of using guns to commit crimes.
The author seemed, to me, to be inferring that gun control laws didn't make an impact while increasing the punishment for using a gun in a crime did coincide with a reduction in crime.In other words, research hasn't been completed. Likely as not, there hasn't been enough funding.
Gun control laws are only relevant to those who obey them. There is no denying that gun control laws such as restrictions on sales and registration only effect law-abiding citizens. Criminals buy their guns illegally thereby circumventing the restriction and licensing process.Again, the bigger picture is that gun control laws are an umbrella that encompasses all gun usage, both legal and illegal. The current perspective, which is popular from the look of things, is that gun control laws are only relevant to those who are likely to obey them.
Whatever you say, I define a criminal as someone who breaks the law.If someone is aware that hard drug use is likely to cause them to become violent as well as totally idiotic, and they go on to use the drugs, then they are a criminal.
The important point is that "rights" are made up by people, so they are not existing inherently and inalienably in reality. That is why I say that fighting emotionally to hold onto rights, as if they are God- or State-given, is delusional.ChochemV2 wrote:K: Owning and using guns has no meaning in itself. It is only when it's regarded as a God-given right, or even just a "right", that it becomes a problem. That belief is delusional, seeing that rights are determined by values.
C: The state gives us this "right" to own guns and it's one of the foundation beliefs in this country.
K: This is a delusional belief, with no rational basis. Just because a group of people says, "Here, you can do so-and-so", doesn't mean you can always do so-and-so.
C: No, it's a fact of life which must be dealt with and for now there are people who say what we can do and rules which society has set. There are ways of changing the law but you'd have to prove it would make a difference.
I have not said this. I have been consistent in contextualising my points to help thinkers emerge. Anything which promotes reason above blind faith and emotionalism, is such a crack in the barrier separating thinkers from the herd-mind.Saying "The world would be better without guns" isn't enough.
Do you see increased policing, increased imprisonment, legalised abortion, and halting of crack epidemics, as enough proof that restrictions on gun usage to commit crime, actually make a difference?K: It's interesting that the many different excuses, offered for supporting the usage and ownership of guns in America, in this thread, boil down to this:
- Someone else said I should, and they must be right
- No one else can be trusted
- Other people cannot be trusted to create and maintain a civilised human environment
It's very short-sighted and hellish. Very much coming out of a Merged Void mentality.
C: I'm still looking for proof that a gun ban or greater restriction will actually make a difference.
The very point I'm making, you are relying on to make yours. That is, to think in advance of a potential situation.K: As the old saw goes, prevention is better than cure. Better to deal with it a long, long time before it happens.
C: Once again, that's wonderful, but beside the point. Cops take time to get to a scene, disarming a criminal is above the skill level of the average person, and someone who means to harm you isn't easily reasoned with.
Your complaint seems to be that criminals shouldn't be defined as those who hate truth or are unconscious of truth.K: They are exactly the same thing. You said something like, "a person who you can't reason with".
C: Once again, that isn't the point. I'm asking for you to use generally accepted definitions instead which everyone will understand instead of your specialized definitions which need explanation.
Do you as an individual see a connection between increased imprisonment for criminals using guns, and new laws increasing imprisonment for criminals using guns?K: Yes, I read that. It's not strictly true though, because the article also states that crime fell when laws were passed to put more people who used guns to commit crimes in prison. That is really a law that controls gun usage, as it's a deterrent.
C: And, once again, gun control laws refer to laws which are meant to restrict the sale and use of firearms. The author is clearly making the distinction between "gun control" and punishment laws in his analysis.
I see a strong connection between legal and illegal gun usage, for the simple reason that non-criminal gun owners seem to demand the right to use firearms to protect themselves from criminals.K: So even though the potential criminal may not seem to come under gun control laws, there are many ways to communicate the cost of using guns to commit crimes.
C: As above, you seem to be suffering from a disconnect between gun control laws and punishment laws.
Obviously, funding wouldn't come through if this corrective step is premature. That makes sense: the four explanations help to orient to the destination in a long journey, far more than the six other explanations. The author doesn't say the four explanations can be relied on for the future, though, which again makes sense, since the other six will likely play a part further down the track.K: In other words, research hasn't been completed. Likely as not, there hasn't been enough funding.
C: The author seemed, to me, to be inferring that gun control laws didn't make an impact while increasing the punishment for using a gun in a crime did coincide with a reduction in crime.
You're not thinking.K: Again, the bigger picture is that gun control laws are an umbrella that encompasses all gun usage, both legal and illegal. The current perspective, which is popular from the look of things, is that gun control laws are only relevant to those who are likely to obey them.
C: Gun control laws are only relevant to those who obey them. There is no denying that gun control laws such as restrictions on sales and registration only effect law-abiding citizens. Criminals buy their guns illegally thereby circumventing the restriction and licensing process.
I'm defining a specific law, not what a criminal is. It can be, that anyone who knows that hard drug use is likely to cause them to become violent and totally idiotic, and goes onto use the drugs, is a criminal, and should be dealt with as such.K: If someone is aware that hard drug use is likely to cause them to become violent as well as totally idiotic, and they go on to use the drugs, then they are a criminal.
C: Whatever you say, I define a criminal as someone who breaks the law.
I haven't been arguing from that point of view, just advocating the fact that in a discussion such as this one has to take the law into account including how attached people are to it and how to change it. I've been arguing that gun control laws fail to solve the problem and instead harm the law abiding citizen who keeps a gun for self-defense or collecting. Harsher sentencing, more and better organized police, affecting social change and the like do reduce crime but gun control doesn't, or at least doesn't to a degree which we have been able to measure yet.Kelly Jones wrote:The important point is that "rights" are made up by people, so they are not existing inherently and inalienably in reality. That is why I say that fighting emotionally to hold onto rights, as if they are God- or State-given, is delusional.
No, because none of those are examples of restrictions on gun usage. They are examples of social change and change in consequences for using firearms but not technically "gun control". These are the things which will change society and not the mindless beliefs of our gun control groups which simply scream "Get rid of the guns!".Kelly Jones wrote:Do you see increased policing, increased imprisonment, legalised abortion, and halting of crack epidemics, as enough proof that restrictions on gun usage to commit crime, actually make a difference?
One can only hope so. I'd love to live in a country where 50% of households didn't feel the need to own a gun.Kelly Jones wrote:With crime reduced in this way, then there will be far less reason for the ordinary citizen to own and use guns, will there not?
And most people take preventative steps such as deciding where they live, only walking on the street at certain times, paying attention to their surroundings to avoid potential conflict and the like. In the event that your life is threatened, even if you are being cautious, it's potentially beneficial to have a gun.Kelly Jones wrote:As explained in the above last comment, the potential criminal we're hypothesising about, becomes less of a potential if the proper action is taken. The aim is not necessarily to learn to disarm a criminal yourself, or to kill him, but to reduce his likelihood.
How many non-criminals are conscious of truth? It isn't beneficial to include something which isn't universal to the group we are discussing in a definition of that group.Kelly Jones wrote:Your complaint seems to be that criminals shouldn't be defined as those who hate truth or are unconscious of truth.
In what way do criminals show a love of truth?
While I personally think imprisonment is an artificial control of criminals I have seen evidence, such as your link, that increased punishment decreases the overall level of crime.Kelly Jones wrote:Do you as an individual see a connection between increased imprisonment for criminals using guns, and new laws increasing imprisonment for criminals using guns?
Yes, but the connection is one way. If you reduce illegal gun usage then legal gun usage goes down, however, if you reduce legal gun usage it doesn't change the level of illegal gun usage.Kelly Jones wrote:I see a strong connection between legal and illegal gun usage, for the simple reason that non-criminal gun owners seem to demand the right to use firearms to protect themselves from criminals.
This is a very important point to take into account.ChochemV2 wrote:K: The important point is that "rights" are made up by people, so they are not existing inherently and inalienably in reality. That is why I say that fighting emotionally to hold onto rights, as if they are God- or State-given, is delusional.
C: I haven't been arguing from that point of view, just advocating the fact that in a discussion such as this one has to take the law into account including how attached people are to it and how to change it.
So, you do agree that they make a difference to gun usage to commit crime, and do actually restrict gun usage to commit crime?Do you see increased policing, increased imprisonment, legalised abortion, and halting of crack epidemics, as enough proof that restrictions on gun usage to commit crime, actually make a difference?
C: No, because none of those are examples of restrictions on gun usage. They are examples of social change and change in consequences for using firearms but not technically "gun control". These are the things which will change society and not the mindless beliefs of our gun control groups which simply scream "Get rid of the guns!".
What other suggestions do you have to help the cause along?K: With crime reduced in this way, then there will be far less reason for the ordinary citizen to own and use guns, will there not?
C: One can only hope so. I'd love to live in a country where 50% of households didn't feel the need to own a gun.
So making predictions about possible events is normal for humans. Having the ability to look many years into the future is a sign of genius.K: As explained in the above last comment, the potential criminal we're hypothesising about, becomes less of a potential if the proper action is taken. The aim is not necessarily to learn to disarm a criminal yourself, or to kill him, but to reduce his likelihood.
C: And most people take preventative steps such as deciding where they live, only walking on the street at certain times, paying attention to their surroundings to avoid potential conflict and the like. In the event that your life is threatened, even if you are being cautious, it's potentially beneficial to have a gun.
Yes, and I have introduced that thing. At one end of the scale is unconsciousness and mindless/idiotic hatred of truth, and at the other is consciousness and mindful "love" of truth. In between these points are many. We can put criminals and total idiots at the 0% conscious end, and the wise man and sage at the 100% end (or, for purposes of this discussion, 70-100%).K: Your complaint seems to be that criminals shouldn't be defined as those who hate truth or are unconscious of truth. In what way do criminals show a love of truth?
C: How many non-criminals are conscious of truth? It isn't beneficial to include something which isn't universal to the group we are discussing in a definition of that group.
So you definitely see a connection between using laws to create deterrents to crime, and reduced crime ?K: Do you as an individual see a connection between increased imprisonment for criminals using guns, and new laws increasing imprisonment for criminals using guns?
C: While I personally think imprisonment is an artificial control of criminals I have seen evidence, such as your link, that increased punishment decreases the overall level of crime.
Ok.K: I see a strong connection between legal and illegal gun usage, for the simple reason that non-criminal gun owners seem to demand the right to use firearms to protect themselves from criminals.
C: Yes, but the connection is one way. If you reduce illegal gun usage then legal gun usage goes down, however, if you reduce legal gun usage it doesn't change the level of illegal gun usage.
There's a billboard that I see on my way to work that states if you are convicted of a crime involving both drugs and guns, there is a mandatory five year minimum sentence.Kelly Jones wrote:How do you think Americans can raise popular support for deterrents against illegal gun usage ?
It's probably not early enough. I'm not sure that a reminder while speeding along a freeway with a crime in progress is early enough. I'm thinking that reminders while having breakfast, or even better, on packets of prophylactics would be better (Mum might decide not to fall pregnant).DHodges wrote:There's a billboard that I see on my way to work that states if you are convicted of a crime involving both drugs and guns, there is a mandatory five year minimum sentence.Kelly Jones wrote:How do you think Americans can raise popular support for deterrents against illegal gun usage ?
Is that the kind of thing you have in mind?
Hang on, that's what a deterrent is. The desire to commit a crime depends on causes. The causes are whatever enables the crime to exist.ChochemV2 wrote:Personally I have a problem with more severe prison sentences because prisons create an artificially lower crime rate. It's easy to say that increased prison sentences lead to a decrease in crime because they keep criminals from committing crimes, the hypothesis is self-supporting.
Are you talking about treatment before being convicted, or after?The question is whether prison is a deterrent and whether, in the long run, it will lead to anything more than an ever growing prison system. It seems to me that our penchant for prison over treatment has done nothing but put an unprecedented number of American citizens behind bars.
Yes, Americans seem to have a bad "conviction" record when it comes to being intelligent. In the fifites, for instance, it was very difficult to get Americans to wear seat-belts, to save their own lives in car collisions.America seems completely unwilling to finance social change which could lead to permanently lower crime rates because we'd rather buy useless possessions
I don't know about that. There are hundreds of thousands of nuclear warheads on earth, and probably a third are at 15 minutes' readiness for firing, by the order of a single man - whoever leads the country.and build weapons even though we 1.) Don't have a militarily comparable opponent
Nuclear armaments are last resorts, to wipe out whole nations (civilians), rather than soldiers. When the culture is wiped out, its defence mechanism is meaningless.and 2.) Real war will probably be nuclear so how does artillery help with that?
Yes, but historically it's been tough to prove that deterrents actually work. The death penalty can't truly be shown to reduce crime but we keep it around for closure, or retribution more honestly. Crime is irrational by it's very nature and a drug addict doesn't care about the punishment for his actions just getting high. A serial killer kills for fun and doesn't even consider the consequences. Thieves steal despite the consequences already, and have throughout history, so what would be enough to stop people from stealing? I doubt you can find significant evidence that any form of punishment acts as much of a deterrent.Kelly Jones wrote:Hang on, that's what a deterrent is. The desire to commit a crime depends on causes. The causes are whatever enables the crime to exist.
At all. Our system seems to believe that making license plates and serving an extra five years for using a gun in a crime is the same thing as treatment. We choose mandatory minimum sentences for drug users instead of investing in drug rehab. It's only relatively recently that we even gave prisoners the ability to better themselves while in prison instead of simply locking them up and feeding them gruel.Kelly Jones wrote:Are you talking about treatment before being convicted, or after?
I think there were some more important things during the fifties such as McCarthyism and the beginning of our obsession with communism with the Korean War.Kelly Jones wrote:Yes, Americans seem to have a bad "conviction" record when it comes to being intelligent. In the fifites, for instance, it was very difficult to get Americans to wear seat-belts, to save their own lives in car collisions.
Aliens...? Honestly I stopped reading that reply seriously after you said that.Kelly Jones wrote:I think it's intelligent for a country to have the most powerful, up-to-date weapons one can afford. There is always a chance of being invaded by aliens, no matter how far-fetched that sounds. But even more obviously, it's intelligent to use weapons without the emotionalism that drove Lyndon to firebomb North Korea and kill ten thousand civilians by mistake.
You can't make "criminal" a universal definition. It's dependent on the cultures which apply it and the laws they have set. There are enumerated war crimes so there can be war criminals.Kelly Jones wrote:Since that egotistical love is delusional, one who is thereby called a war criminal is also delusional. So, "a criminal is a person who breaks the law" is not really reliable as a definition.
Iolaus wrote:Really, now? That is most interesting Tomas. Where do you generally hang out?I meet junkies all the time who are lawyers, aldermen, bank managers, etc. so-on-and-so-forth...
Have you gotten through the night, or are you still there?Tomas wrote:Look, pal, drugs are every shape and form, whatever gets you through the night.
What is philosophy to you?life is way too short to sit around to philosophize to extremes...
