I don't even know why we're debating this. The guy is gone.
The Left can ***** that justice was raped, the Crips and other people can burn down the other half of LA in the name of righteous anger (while stopping to grab that nice new 27 inch Hi-Def TV from the looting of their local Wal Mart as compensation for what they think "The Man" owes them) and life will go on. Ya' gotta' love the world.
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Although to be fair, having guns at all doesn't help.
And having people lay Bowling For Columbine as a guilt trip on law abiding hunters and target shooters dosen't help either. Noone has to ask for Michael Moore or Rosie O' Donnell's permission to practice our Constitutional rights. They speak about how guns are bad and kill, but yet somehow find a way to keep one or two for themselves for personal safety..so apprently normal people like you and I can't handle them, but rich and famous experts are trained professionals. 🙄
Same with anything in life: People disagree with others ways of life\personal practices unless it suits their own needs, then it's OK.
<<The death penalty doesn't discourage crime at all, that's been factually proven countless times.>>
you're assuming deterrence is the reason behind it, which may or may not be correct. since it HAS been shown many times to be ineffectual as a deterrent, perhaps there IS another reason it is used . . .
<<Well, obviously he can't commit crime from beyond the grave. He also can't while incarcerated>>
that is very obviously incorrect. many powerful criminals have been proven to still direct illegal operations from prisons, have negative effects on society from behind bars and actually commit murder on the inside of prisons.
overpopulation of prisons only WORSENS already bad conditions and allows even LESS chance at true rehabilitation and it is a cycle that is growing. looking at this objectively for a moment:
you are walking home with your son/daughter/wife/husband/brother/sister. on the way home, a man kills said significant other and laughs at them as they are dying. a cop is right around the corner and sees the whole thing and the person laughs as they are taken into custody. from here, 2 things can happen:
1. he is sentenced to death for the crime
2. he is sentenced to life imprisonment no chance at parole
'negatives' of (1): answering a killing with a killing is by some standards an immoral act. it is hypocritical in the eyes of the law. there is a chance that anyone put to death MAY be innocent (though not in this case)
'negatives' of (2): living relative of the victim knows that the person who killed their relative lives behind bars, even enjoys a ltd amount of freedom. taxpayers pay for that person to live in prison.
'positives' of (1): a killer is met with old world justice which is viewed as moral by some standards. there is no lifelong cost of incarceration payable by the taxpayers. there is no chance of an appeal for parole. there is no chance that the individual will live a life in prison where he can do more harm to other inmates or employees.
'positives' of (2): we wash our hands of any moral liability. there remains a chance at rehabilitation. murderer is treated in a humane manner and the law is shown to be 'above the decadent behavior' of the criminal.
did i miss any? please fill in what i missed. when viewed this way, the reasons for not using cp (capital punishment) seem so . . . esoteric. i'd LOVE to be able to make the chance of a wrongful conviction ZERO %, like i'd LOVE to be able to allow rehabilitation of all criminals.
neither will happen.
once again, bearing in mind the ineffectiveness of rpisons for rehab, the overcrowding problems, the cost of keeping prisons running properly, the higher demand on 'humane' treatment of inmates (ie -- easier time of it in prison) and the UPWARD trend of all these factors, please give me a viable alternative to cp?
NOT killing is not a good option because it does nothing to address any of the above. care to try again?
we could of course do nothing and get the lix of cp and non-cp that we have, along with all the problems inherent in both . . .
Originally posted by Dagons Blade
I'll buy part of your argument. Prisonofficers is not something that is
fun and enjoyable. But the courage of the person taking the job is something to be admired. DO you think YOU can do it?
The difference between us is that YOU call it courage. I don't think I could, not because it's some arduous, courage-dependant experience. It just doesn't interest me in any way, shape or form. I have no interest in doing anything like that.
That is flawed anyway. I probably couldn't do what Steve Irwin does, doesn't mean I am in no right to say that if the man gets his leg taken off by a crocodile, he is asking for it.
Originally posted by Dagons Blade
Yet you derive your safety from their everyday courage and sacrifices. Apparently you have no love for our heroes unless an enemy is at your gate.
A) No, I don't derive my safety from their everyday job that they choose to do.
B) Our? Stop speaking for me. They're not my heroes. What's heroic about wanting to work in a prison?
"Yeah, look at me. I'm working in this prison surrounded by dangerous criminals. I'm keeping you safe."
No you're not, the bars are, the prison is. Hence it being called prison. You're there to keep things in check, you're not stopping riots one handed every day are you? No. You're not standing there fighting off rampant inmate sieges at every corner. You are a prison guard.
It's your choice to be a prison guard. You know full well that something may happen to you, so to ignore that and work there removes all respect I have for you. Even worse than ignoring the dangers are accepting them.
Originally posted by Dagons Blade
Who comes to your house when you're in trouble? Police. When you're sick? Medics. When a foreign enemy is at your door? The military.
When I'm hungry? A waiter. When I wanna go somewhere? A bus with a driver.
What's your point? They choose to do it. I'm not asking them to. They accept it as their job, they take the job.
Originally posted by Dagons Blade
As far as you being here because of your parents, no shit Sherlock. Throw us a bone here will ya'? Seems to me that you have little concern for others outside of yourself, and if you want to be a selfish go ahead. Police and military as just as resp. for our safety as well.
Why should I throw bones? I'm not customer services. If you can't sort out what you mean, then don't say it.
Secondly, I care for those who impact and are involved in, my life. Not some man who actively pursued a job and got killed for it. If anything, I feel sorry for the prison wardens families. I feel sorry for the soldiers families. Not the prison guards or the soldiers. Why? Because they are agreeing to be thrust in dangerous situations they could avoid by not taking the job. If my Dad did either of those I'd be disrespected, not proud. Me and my family are here and we love him, if he's willing to die for some nobodies, he can forget it if he thinks he is earning my respect.
Originally posted by Dagons Blade
Is a foreign enemy occupying your soil? Is your street safe? Do you have to worry about getting mugged whenever you go out? NO? Then thank the ones who made it possible instead of being a selfish bastard.
No, No and No.
A foreign enemy hasn't invaded because they haven't chose to. Our streets are far from "safe" and being mugged in London at night is an ever-present possibility.
I don't live in fear of them because police or not, it's always gonna be there and I can't stop it from happening any more than they can. I'm not giving respect to people who don't immediately deserve it. You say selfish like it's bad. Yes, I look out for myself. Oooh, aren't I the despicable human being? I'm sure a police officer's wife feels extremely proud when she gets a phone call saying "Your husband and father of your kids has been stabbed to death. But don't worry, he did it saving some random person from a mugging." Sure, he was selfless. But he was also not giving a shit about what would happen to those who actually mattered to him in the event that he was killed.
Your whole thought pattern is flawed.
Originally posted by Dagons Blade
I hate to burst YOUR unrealistic bubble but you owe other people for your daily freedom.
Those people aren't prison guards or policemen though.
-AC
Originally posted by leonidasthat is very obviously incorrect. many powerful criminals have been proven to still direct illegal operations from prisons, have negative effects on society from behind bars and actually commit murder on the inside of prisons.
Then sorting the prisons seems to be a good start.
Originally posted by leonidas
overpopulation of prisons only WORSENS already bad conditions and allows even LESS chance at true rehabilitation and it is a cycle that is growing.
See above.
Originally posted by leonidas
looking at this objectively for a moment:you are walking home with your son/daughter/wife/husband/brother/sister. on the way home, a man kills said significant other and laughs at them as they are dying. a cop is right around the corner and sees the whole thing and the person laughs as they are taken into custody. from here, 2 things can happen:
1. he is sentenced to death for the crime
2. he is sentenced to life imprisonment no chance at parole'negatives' of (1): answering a killing with a killing is by some standards an immoral act. it is hypocritical in the eyes of the law. there is a chance that anyone put to death MAY be innocent (though not in this case)
'negatives' of (2): living relative of the victim knows that the person who killed their relative lives behind bars, even enjoys a ltd amount of freedom. taxpayers pay for that person to live in prison.
'positives' of (1): a killer is met with old world justice which is viewed as moral by some standards. there is no lifelong cost of incarceration payable by the taxpayers. there is no chance of an appeal for parole. there is no chance that the individual will live a life in prison where he can do more harm to other inmates or employees.
'positives' of (2): we wash our hands of any moral liability. there remains a chance at rehabilitation. murderer is treated in a humane manner and the law is shown to be 'above the decadent behavior' of the criminal.
did i miss any? please fill in what i missed. when viewed this way, the reasons for not using cp (capital punishment) seem so . . . esoteric. i'd LOVE to be able to make the chance of a wrongful conviction ZERO %, like i'd LOVE to be able to allow rehabilitation of all criminals.
neither will happen.
once again, bearing in mind the ineffectiveness of rpisons for rehab, the overcrowding problems, the cost of keeping prisons running properly, the higher demand on 'humane' treatment of inmates (ie -- easier time of it in prison) and the UPWARD trend of all these factors, please give me a viable alternative to cp?
NOT killing is not a good option because it does nothing to address any of the above. care to try again?
we could of course do nothing and get the lix of cp and non-cp that we have, along with all the problems inherent in both . . .
The point about my admittedly facetious reply 'not killing', is that it is actually the obvious alternative to capital punishment. There is an alternative- we have it now. It's just not ideal.
Originally posted by Dagons Blade
And having people lay Bowling For Columbine as a guilt trip on law abiding hunters and target shooters dosen't help either. Noone has to ask for Michael Moore or Rosie O' Donnell's permission to practice our Constitutional rights. They speak about how guns are bad and kill, but yet somehow find a way to keep one or two for themselves for personal safety..so apprently normal people like you and I can't handle them, but rich and famous experts are trained professionals. 🙄Same with anything in life: People disagree with others ways of life\personal practices unless it suits their own needs, then it's OK.
The point being though, that if no-one has guns (or if we are being realistic, a few criminals), there will be, and are, fewer gun crimes.
Originally posted by leonidasyou are walking home with your son/daughter/wife/husband/brother/sister. on the way home, a man kills said significant other and laughs at them as they are dying. a cop is right around the corner and sees the whole thing and the person laughs as they are taken into custody. from here, 2 things can happen:
1. he is sentenced to death for the crime
2. he is sentenced to life imprisonment no chance at parole
And 3: In an alternate incident, you can be attacked on the street or
in your home by a violent nutbag who wants to kill you and your whole family for 5 bucks in a cookie jar so he can get a fix.
You can incapacitate him, and risk becoming a felon for using excessive force if he sues you for his injuries. OR...you can kill him in self defense as he tries to stab you to death and his relatives can sue you to ensure you become a felon for saving YOUR life.
The self defense laws of some states are really insane. This is another area that needs to be addressed as far as hypocrisy.
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
The point being though, that if no-one has guns (or if we are being realistic, a few criminals), there will be, and are, fewer gun crimes.
Yeah as usual, the law abiding citizen suffers from the actions of the idiots. As if my hunting, and the occasional days I spend at the range with my father shooting trap and skeet and the occasional Cowboy Shoot is contributing to crime....
Originally posted by Dagons Blade
Yeah as usual, the law abiding citizen suffers from the actions of the idiots. As if my hunting, and the occasional days I spend at the range with my father shooting trap and skeet and the occasional Cowboy Shoot is contributing to crime....
I didn't actually believe that Americans viewed having a gun as a right. Obviously that was wrong.
Here we don't really use guns as part of the everyday culture.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Exactly.It's a choice. It's like people who clean their table at restaurants. Why? It's not your job. "I don't wanna leave the waitress to do it all." It's her job.
-AC
LOL...
I do that.
Not out of consideration for the waitress. But more because I'm listening to some inane statement from the other person, and it allows me to seem interested without listening at all.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Guns are illegal here. We have less gun crime than the US.But as Bill Hicks said, "There's obviously no connection between having a gun and shooting someone or not having a gun and not shooting someone. You'd be a fool and a communist to make a connection."
-AC
You still evade the issue. Tell me how people like me who have followed the law all my life are part of the gun crime problem? Can you prove that everyone who has a gun is a criminal?
Posted by Victor Von Doom:
I didn't actually believe that Americans viewed having a gun as a right. Obviously that was wrong.
Here we don't really use guns as part of the everyday culture.
No but England gave us the sport of trapand skeet. It was considered a gentleman's sport. I speak of typical sport shooting and nothing more and nod to my British brothers and sisters for giving us such a fun sport 🙂
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
LOL...I do that.
Not out of consideration for the waitress. But more because I'm listening to some inane statement from the other person, and it allows me to seem interested without listening at all.
Yeah you pretend to be interested when in reality you're staring down her shirt or hoping for a nice upskirt shot when she bends across the table 3 ffet in frontof you to pick stuff up. Don't ask me how I know 😉
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
I didn't actually believe that Americans viewed having a gun as a right. Obviously that was wrong.Here we don't really use guns as part of the everyday culture.
Oh yeah, from "my cold dead hands"...as it were
We're basically just a country full of rednecks, with a little money.
Originally posted by Dagons Blade
You still evade the issue. Tell me how people like me who have followed the law all my life are part of the gun crime problem? Can you prove that everyone who has a gun is a criminal?Posted by Victor Von Doom:
I didn't actually believe that Americans viewed having a gun as a right. Obviously that was wrong.
Here we don't really use guns as part of the everyday culture.
No but England gave us the sport of trapand skeet. It was considered a gentleman's sport. I speak of typical sport shooting and nothing more and nod to my British brothers and sisters for giving us such a fun sport 🙂
You haven't asked me anything to evade, that was VVD and I doubt he's evading it.
Legalising guns is a different matter than handing them out only for sport and with a licence.
-AC