Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > More guns = more crime?

More guns = more crime? (Page 3)
Thread Tools
BC_SIG
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Hongcouver, Japanada.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2004, 10:11 AM
 
Hmm Beretta, Very nice, 92F's,I Love them, I have two, but wouldnt mind aquiring the new Cx4 Storm, ive found it for sale in Vancouver luckily and will add it to my wish list along with an SL-8 & SG-550. You may say what I want may not be legal to civilians, but lucky me, im no civilian. Anywho. keep on posting people.
Fav Stuff: Kevlar, Camo, Boots, Weapons, Electronics, Win XP :P
EuroTrip, "Escape!" Finding Nemo :D Oh Ya, Can't Forget Athens On Here's, He's Da Best. ;)
     
badidea
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hamburg
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2004, 10:23 AM
 
Originally posted by BC_SIG:
Der Scharfsch�tze Werde Jederzeit Das Gewinnen. "ME"
Of topic:
Was soll das bedeuten? (What's that supposed to mean?)
translation: "the sharpshooter Will At Any time The Winning"

Do you want to say: "the sharpshooter will win at anytime!"?
Then you should change it to: "Der Scharfsch�tze wird immer gewinnen!"
***
     
BC_SIG
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Hongcouver, Japanada.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2004, 10:26 AM
 
thankx bud, was getting slightly careless, and it is wow, 6:26am afterall. btw, you spelled OFF wrong.
( Last edited by BC_SIG; Dec 16, 2004 at 10:58 AM. )
Fav Stuff: Kevlar, Camo, Boots, Weapons, Electronics, Win XP :P
EuroTrip, "Escape!" Finding Nemo :D Oh Ya, Can't Forget Athens On Here's, He's Da Best. ;)
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2004, 10:54 AM
 
and the risk of someone breaking into my house to slaughter my wife and children just for the fun of it, is near zero
Why you are not willing to embrace statistical improbabilities like the above for one ideal (when I'm sure I can cite many more examples of rape, pedophilia, and kidnapping than you can in embracing the statistical improbability of the below), yet...
http://www.thestar.co.za/index.php?...ticleId=2087455
Exactly the reason why I support banning guns!
this statistical improbability constitutes "the reason you support banning guns". Interesting indeed. I think that's a badidea.
ebuddy
     
badidea
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hamburg
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2004, 11:11 AM
 
Originally posted by ebuddy:
Why you are not willing to embrace statistical improbabilities like the above for one ideal (when I'm sure I can cite many more examples of rape, pedophilia, and kidnapping than you can in embracing the statistical improbability of the below), yet...

this statistical improbability constitutes "the reason you support banning guns". Interesting indeed. I think that's a badidea.
If I understand your post correctly, you are saying that there are statistically more cases of rape, pedophilia and kidnapping than lethal accidents with guns?!
That's probably correct!
It's also comparing apples with oranges though!
If you ban guns, it is almost 100% certain that an accident like the one mentioned before wouldn't have happened!
If you allow guns to the adult puplic, nobody can tell how much it would help in preventing rape (do you always carry a gun?)!
In case of pedophilia and kidnapping it wouldn't help at all since kids would still not be allowed to carry a gun!
***
     
Sherwin
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2004, 11:38 AM
 
Originally posted by BC_SIG:
Hello everyone, lets make my first post here
Hi, and welcome.

Originally posted by BC_SIG:
Well first thing to say, many people in the United Kingdom own firearms, but generally Sporting/Hunting Rifles & Shotguns, and the odd permitted collecter owns pistol, and yes CRIMINALS own firearms as well, tho a growing craze in the UK, is using REPLICA FIREARMS. I Know this first hand from going back home and visiting family and being held up with a bloody BB GUN.
I can go get myself a glock for about a 100 quid right now, but that'd make me a criminal.
I thought the latest thing was battering grannies in their homes? Or maybe breaking and entering (I even had to break and enter myself today - door handle fell off when I left the house this morning! I think I made it too hard to get in by force as it took me ages).

Any which way, it's about time we started letting people defend themselves.

Actually, the real and proper way out of this mess in the UK is to implement an additional level of conviction - "guilty beyond doubt" - and give intruders at least 50 years in chokey if convicted. Not nice chokey with Playstations and TV either - bread and water sleep on the floor chokey.
Not enough prison spaces? Build some more prisons!
Too expensive to keep them? Heck it costs less to keep me per week than it does to keep a crim in chokey (and that's with me having a real good time) - just ration them down and organise so it costs less.

Originally posted by Athens:
Can you produce stats on gun deaths, im sure the US will top that easly
No, I haven't got that, but here's some on violent crime in general:
http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page63.asp
(if you believe what the government says, that is. Gordon Brown reckons the economy is doing great yet we have the worst trade deficit since the 17th century!)

According to this:
http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page55.asp
there's a 3% chance of you having to defend yourself from an intruder. So in other words a 3% chance of finding yourself in court charged with assault for an incident you didn't initiate. Too high a rate for my liking.
     
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2004, 12:11 PM
 
Originally posted by Sherwin:
According to this:
http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page55.asp
there's a 3% chance of you having to defend yourself from an intruder. So in other words a 3% chance of finding yourself in court charged with assault for an incident you didn't initiate. Too high a rate for my liking.
I think you're misreading those figures. The report says 3% of homes are burgled. That's not the same thing as saying you have a 3% chance of having to defend yourself from a burglar. You might not be there or you might be there but never even know the burglar was.

About half of the burglaries in the UK resulted in access to the home. Half of the homes that there was access to were occupied. In only 19 out 990 burglaries did the occupier of the home see the burglar (which you're going to want to do if you're shooting at them). That's less than 2% of all burglaries where you might have been able to use a gun. And of course, we all agree that it shouldn't be legal to use a gun unless violence is threatened so let's look at that. Violence was used in 7 out of 1,105 burglaries. Threats of violence in another 2! So in less than 1% of all burglaries would it be justified to use a gun and even then it's not clear that you would even know about the burglary or have time to react.

It's also noteworthy that crime is decreasing in the UK despite the fact that potential victims don't have guns.
     
Sherwin
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2004, 12:27 PM
 
Originally posted by Troll:
About half of the burglaries in the UK resulted in access to the home. Half of the homes that there was access to were occupied. In only 19 out 990 burglaries did the occupier of the home see the burglar (which you're going to want to do if you're shooting at them). That's less than 2% of all burglaries where you might have been able to use a gun. And of course, we all agree that it shouldn't be legal to use a gun unless violence is threatened so let's look at that. Violence was used in 7 out of 1,105 burglaries. Threats of violence in another 2! So in less than 1% of all burglaries would it be justified to use a gun and even then it's not clear that you would even know about the burglary or have time to react.
Where are these figures from? I mean, come on, there's been four or five burglary murders (that I know of, and I've been distracted with work) in the last two weeks alone.

Originally posted by Troll:
It's also noteworthy that crime is decreasing in the UK despite the fact that potential victims don't have guns.
Crime is decreasing? This wouldn't be Labour cooking the books again would it? Do you believe this government about WMDs in Iraq? No? Then why believe them on crime figures? Do you believe Tony when he says Blunkett did nothing wrong? Then why did Blunkett stand down yesterday?

I'll let you into a secret. Plod isn't even making crime reports unless he thinks there's more than a 75% chance of a conviction. Helps the "league table" figures to give the citizen a false sense of security (and make Tony look better, of course).

(edit: fixed typo)
( Last edited by Sherwin; Dec 16, 2004 at 12:39 PM. )
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2004, 12:34 PM
 
Originally posted by Troll:
And of course, we all agree that it shouldn't be legal to use a gun unless violence is threatened
No, we don't "all agree" with that. AFAIK, in most US states, the homeowner is resonably entitled to believe that his life is in danger if there is a criminal breaking into his home. He's also entitled to take appropriate actions to defend himself.

Basically, it boils down to this. If they are in your home, or breaking into your home, deadly force is justified as self defense. You don't need an overt threat to be presented. Their unauthorized presence is itself a threat. But if they are running away, self defense isn't really a possible argument because the danger has passed. Another example, is you couldn't assert self defense if you run into a house you know to be empty (other than the burglar) in order to tackle him. It wouldn't be self defense (or the defense of family) if you run toward the danger.

This gives rise to the sensible rule that if you shoot, shoot to kill. It makes cross examination of the burglar shorter.

AFAIK some states have adopted homeowner protection statutes that say in essance, if you break into a home, you deserve whatever you get. The homeowner generally will not be prosecuted. But he might get a pat on the back.
     
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2004, 12:49 PM
 
Originally posted by Sherwin:
Where are these figures from?
The site you posted the link to. I'm not defending the stats. I'm just telling you what they say. And they don't seem to say what you said they do.
     
Sherwin
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2004, 01:02 PM
 
Originally posted by Troll:
The site you posted the link to. I'm not defending the stats. I'm just telling you what they say. And they don't seem to say what you said they do.
OK, the only figure I was looking at when I stated the 3% figure was:

In 2002/03, just over 3 in 100 households were burgled (this includes attempted burglaries and burglaries where nothing was taken).
As far as I'm concerned, according to those figures (and they seem a bit low, to be honest) this is still a 3% chance of having to defend yourself. The fact that some of those burglaries happened while the onwer was out is pure chance, as if the fact that some of those burglaries resulted in denied entry.

The main point with this is that there's enough active burglars to make it a 3% chance of an attempted intrusion - 3% chance of an intent. That's too high a figure.
     
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2004, 01:03 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
No, we don't "all agree" with that.
You need to decide whether you can kill people to defend your property or not. I think most of us agree that it is wrong to kill someone just because they are marching off with your television. I think it's clear what 99% of burglars are trying to achieve when they break into your house. Hint: they're more interested in your TV than shooting you. So any presumption that someone who accesses your home without authority is a threat to your life is a complete nonsense in my opinion. It defies all reason and empirical evidence. I think that kind of presumption is a cover for a capitalists idea that a TV is more important than the life of criminal scum. It's society's way of saying, "Don't ferkin steal my tele, go out and work for a living just like I have to, otherwise I'll kill you."

If you shoot someone who is trying to break into your house or is actually in your house before they've seen you, then that should be murder in my books. I think you need to warn him first and if he doesn't stop, then you're justified in believing he's coming for you. In that case you need to use a proportionate amount of force to deter him. Killing him when he's at your window cutting the burglar bars, isn't justified IMHO. Killing a guy carting your TV through the kitchen isn't justified either.

Take the example I presented earlier. Say it had been a criminal breaking into the car. Who disagrees that the owner was never justified in shooting at the thief?
     
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2004, 01:15 PM
 
Originally posted by Sherwin:
OK, the only figure I was looking at when I stated the 3% figure was:

As far as I'm concerned, according to those figures (and they seem a bit low, to be honest) this is still a 3% chance of having to defend yourself. The fact that some of those burglaries happened while the onwer was out is pure chance, as if the fact that some of those burglaries resulted in denied entry.

The main point with this is that there's enough active burglars to make it a 3% chance of an attempted intrusion - 3% chance of an intent. That's too high a figure.
But you see how your interpretation is wrong? You're assuming intent to commit violence on the part of the burglar when that is a completely illogical thing to assume.

Put it this way. Most burglars KNOW that no one is home. They scope the joint first. They ring the doorbell, they look in the windows - and don't break in if there's anyone home. Some think no one is home and they turn out to be wrong. Others know there's someone at home but break in because they know the owner won't hear them. In all of those cases, the burglar has no intent to harm you, he has intent to steal your tele. If you do see him, he's going to run away. The only burglar that is a threat is the one that is prepared to use violence (and even then there's a differenc in the response that would be justified between a burglar prepared to punch you one who pulls a gun). What the report says is that less than 1% of all burglaries in the UK have a violent aspect. I'm not that good at calculating what the chances are but maybe someone else can do the maths:

1) If you own a home in the UK, there's a 3% chance your home will be broken into.
2) If your home is broken into, there's a 2% chance you'll be aware of the break in.
3) If your home is broken into, there's a 0.8% chance that the break in will turn violent.

I think that works out to an EXTREMELY remote chance that you, as a citizen of the UK, will ever need to defend yourself against an intruder.

That said, I have had to defend myself against an armed intruder in Paris. A bright spark intruder locked himself in an office here and I unwittingly opened the door and let the knife-wielding madman out. It wasn't fun, but clearly the guy was using the knife to clear a path to the exit. I think that's what most burglars are looking to do.
     
Sherwin
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2004, 01:18 PM
 
Originally posted by Troll:
You need to decide whether you can kill people to defend your property or not. I think most of us agree that it is wrong to kill someone just because they are marching off with your television. I think it's clear what 99% of burglars are trying to achieve when they break into your house. Hint: they're more interested in your TV than shooting you. So any presumption that someone who accesses your home without authority is a threat to your life is a complete nonsense in my opinion. It defies all reason and empirical evidence. I think that kind of presumption is a cover for a capitalists idea that a TV is more important than the life of criminal scum. It's society's way of saying, "Don't ferkin steal my tele, go out and work for a living just like I have to, otherwise I'll kill you."

If you shoot someone who is trying to break into your house or is actually in your house before they've seen you, then that should be murder in my books. I think you need to warn him first and if he doesn't stop, then you're justified in believing he's coming for you. In that case you need to use a proportionate amount of force to deter him. Killing him when he's at your window cutting the burglar bars, isn't justified IMHO. Killing a guy carting your TV through the kitchen isn't justified either.
This is entirely the wrong approach, IMO. You're assuming that the stolen items can be easily replaced and hold no sentimental value.

What if the intruder has pocketed the wedding ring of your dead wife?

What if the intruder is marching off with an item which can't be replaced for other reasons? I have some gear here which would be impossible to replace if stolen - and not having those items would impact my earnings, therefore impacting the quality my life for a long time after the theft.

Besides which, the whole of western society is based on property. You work hard so you can buy that 1957 Fender or that Ferrari 288 GTO. Your hard work supplies others with employment. Remove the incentive to work hard for "nice things" which you can keep for more than five minutes before someone walks off with them and you remove the foundations of the whole of western society. No point working hard if you can't keep the stuff you've earned, so you slack off. Your slacking off loses business. Losing business means you can't afford to pay your staff. Your staff then have to gain income from stealing someone else's nice stuff. Who then end up losing interest and sacking their staff. It's a downward spiral ending in miserable communism. Which is what some people want - usually the people who argue against property defence laws.

Originally posted by Troll:
Take the example I presented earlier. Say it had been a criminal breaking into the car. Who disagrees that the owner was never justified in shooting at the thief?
Depends. Maybe he might need the car to rush his pregnant wife to hospital and if he doesn't get there in time she'll die from complications. Who knows until it happens?
     
Sherwin
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2004, 01:21 PM
 
Originally posted by Troll:
But you see how your interpretation is wrong? You're assuming intent to commit violence on the part of the burglar when that is a completely illogical thing to assume.
No. You're assuming that most burglars won't turn violent if they meet the householder (for whatever reason - maybe they get the occupancy estimate wrong). All intruders will turn violent if you're standing between them and their not having to do the week or two in chokey which their crime gets them.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2004, 01:30 PM
 
Originally posted by Troll:
You need to decide whether you can kill people to defend your property or not. I think most of us agree that it is wrong to kill someone just because they are marching off with your television. I think it's clear what 99% of burglars are trying to achieve when they break into your house. Hint: they're more interested in your TV than shooting you. So any presumption that someone who accesses your home without authority is a threat to your life is a complete nonsense in my opinion. It defies all reason and empirical evidence. I think that kind of presumption is a cover for a capitalists idea that a TV is more important than the life of criminal scum. It's society's way of saying, "Don't ferkin steal my tele, go out and work for a living just like I have to, otherwise I'll kill you."

If you shoot someone who is trying to break into your house or is actually in your house before they've seen you, then that should be murder in my books. I think you need to warn him first and if he doesn't stop, then you're justified in believing he's coming for you. In that case you need to use a proportionate amount of force to deter him. Killing him when he's at your window cutting the burglar bars, isn't justified IMHO. Killing a guy carting your TV through the kitchen isn't justified either.

Take the example I presented earlier. Say it had been a criminal breaking into the car. Who disagrees that the owner was never justified in shooting at the thief?
I think your empirical evidence is shaky at best. I also think it is quite unreasonable to ask the victims to risk their lives for the sake of a belief that criminals are only innocently going about their business of victimizing the innocent. If your assumptions are wrong, it is the victim who bears the entire cost of your naivet�

I don't think a burglar requires any form of warning. The act of breaking in gives them all the warning they need. They don't do that by accident, and once you do, you are on notice that other people will take your presence in thier homes as a mortal threat. Any criminal has the option of avoiding this risk by not breaking in. And tough sh1t if they make the wrong choice and get killed in the process. I certainly wouldn't weep.

This is why the law has to be clear that citizens have the right to defend themselves. If you trivialize crime, and elevate the rights of the criminal over those of his victims, he will take advantage of that fact. The law then becomes a weapon against the law abiding to the benefit of the lawbreaking. That's perverse.

I guess I prefer my laws to make a clear distinction between the innocent and the lawbreaking. The laws exist to protect an ordered society, not hand it over to criminals without a fight.
     
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2004, 01:50 PM
 
Originally posted by Sherwin:
No. You're assuming that most burglars won't turn violent if they meet the householder (for whatever reason - maybe they get the occupancy estimate wrong). All intruders will turn violent if you're standing between them and their not having to do the week or two in chokey which their crime gets them.
Hold on. It's not your job to send burglars to the chokey. Enforcing the law yourself is generally called vigilantiism. Policemen enforce the law and they are subject to guidelines as to the use of force. If you want to play policeman, then you need to be subject to the same rules.

Let's assume for a moment that every single time you even see a burglar in your home, the meeting will turn violent. According to the figures you presented, that still means you have a snowball's hope in hell of it ever happening to you. There's a 97% chance that your home will never be broken into. If it is, there's a 98% chance you will never see the burglar.

Are there no actuaries here? If there's a 0.8% chance of a burglary turning violent and 3% of homes are burgled, I'd like to know what percentage of homeowners face violent burglars. Is the answer 0.00024% which is what 1 in every 5,000 homeowners?
     
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2004, 01:58 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I guess I prefer my laws to make a clear distinction between the innocent and the lawbreaking. The laws exist to protect an ordered society, not hand it over to criminals without a fight.
The law makes that distinction. It also decides who should be allowed to enforce the laws and who shouldn't. It gives POLICEMEN the right to enforce the laws and gives them guidelines for when they can use lethal force. You're advocating letting citizens enforce the law but what's worse is you're advocating letting citizens impose the death penalty as and when they see fit. You're effectively saying that death is a reasonable punishment for the crime of theft and then letting citizens impose the penalty themselves.

Besides, what kind of society allows people to kill over a television?I taught law to a bunch of juvenile delinquents in prison in South Africa. Most of them were in there for stealing a radio or a TV or a wallet. A lot of them had nothing and were stealing to survive. Some of them had enough to survive but couldn't resist the temptation to steal a radio through an open window (literally one of the examples). These people weren't killers. They weren't inherently flawed people. They made a mistake which at the end of the day cost some guy who probably had insurance anyway, $50 max for a new radio. I think it's extremely callous to suggest that anyone should be allowed to put someone like that to death!

But you haven't answered the question I posed. If a burglar had been stealing that car in Nelspruit, that was a crime. Do you believe that Vleis Visagie was justified under any circumstances to shoot at the thief?
     
BC_SIG
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Hongcouver, Japanada.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2004, 02:01 PM
 
What ever happened to good old beating the sh*t out of the person that breaks into your house? I know a lot of people that still believe in that system, and police in nearly all cases consider it fair. No chargers to the Victim (Homeowner).
Fav Stuff: Kevlar, Camo, Boots, Weapons, Electronics, Win XP :P
EuroTrip, "Escape!" Finding Nemo :D Oh Ya, Can't Forget Athens On Here's, He's Da Best. ;)
     
Sherwin
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2004, 02:01 PM
 
Originally posted by Troll:
Hold on. It's not your job to send burglars to the chokey. Enforcing the law yourself is generally called vigilantiism. Policemen enforce the law and they are subject to guidelines as to the use of force. If you want to play policeman, then you need to be subject to the same rules.
No. My house, my rules. Anything else is a breach of my human rights (respect for the family, security of person, etc., etc.).

Policemen enforce the law? Not from where I'm sitting.

Originally posted by Troll:
Let's assume for a moment that every single time you even see a burglar in your home, the meeting will turn violent.
According to the figures you presented, that still means you have a snowball's hope in hell of it ever happening to you. There's a 97% chance that your home will never be broken into. If it is, there's a 98% chance you will never see the burglar.

Are there no actuaries here? If there's a 0.8% chance of a burglary turning violent and 3% of homes are burgled, I'd like to know what percentage of homeowners face violent burglars. Is the answer 0.00024% which is what 1 in every 5,000 homeowners?
You appear to be taking those figures at face value, where I'm actually reading between the lines and applying real-world logic to them.
This is going to go nowhere.
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2004, 02:05 PM
 
I was stupid to expect anything different from Americans. Fact is, Americans put a dollar amount on everything and human life isn�t high on that list. A TV is more important then any human life, including scum. It�s just the mentality of the people. For example, a dollar value is placed on health care. Can�t afford tough luck. A dollar value is placed on blood transfusions and organs. You can sell a extra kidney for some money. In states like Texas they choose the death penalty as often as they can to save a few bucks on housing a criminal for life. Drug companies put profit over human life, even though they already make a lot, they want to make a lot more. And the worst is killing tens of thousands over seas in the name of oil and energy. Why should I have expected Americans to think Shoot to kill would be wrong? But you know what, American Criminals are still Americans with the same mentality, so with that in mind they are prob going to kill you during a invasion hence the need for protection and the justification of killing on site. Go American society. You made your own mess, live with it. Rest of the world will progress with out you. Enjoy the wild wild west.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Sherwin
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2004, 02:07 PM
 
Originally posted by Troll:
The law makes that distinction. It also decides who should be allowed to enforce the laws and who shouldn't. It gives POLICEMEN the right to enforce the laws and gives them guidelines for when they can use lethal force.
POLICEMEN aren't around when you need them.

Originally posted by Troll:
Besides, what kind of society allows people to kill over a television?I taught law to a bunch of juvenile delinquents in prison in South Africa. Most of them were in there for stealing a radio or a TV or a wallet. A lot of them had nothing and were stealing to survive. Some of them had enough to survive but couldn't resist the temptation to steal a radio through an open window (literally one of the examples). These people weren't killers.
I would suggest, then, that your teaching approach is somewhat flawed - given that most muggers will shoot you for a tenner down in SA.

Originally posted by Troll:
But you haven't answered the question I posed. If a burglar had been stealing that car in Nelspruit, that was a crime. Do you believe that Vleis Visagie was justified under any circumstances to shoot at the thief?
Read my answer to this question. What happens if the owner needed that car in a life or death situation? Does the thief think about this when taking it?
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2004, 02:07 PM
 
Originally posted by BC_SIG:
What ever happened to good old beating the sh*t out of the person that breaks into your house? I know a lot of people that still believe in that system, and police in nearly all cases consider it fair. No chargers to the Victim (Homeowner).
Cowboys (Americans) are just to gunho. They prefer to shoot or be shot at.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Sherwin
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2004, 02:09 PM
 
Originally posted by Athens:
I was stupid to expect anything different from Americans. Fact is, Americans put a dollar amount on everything and human life isn�t high on that list. A TV is more important then any human life, including scum. It�s just the mentality of the people. For example, a dollar value is placed on health care. Can�t afford tough luck. A dollar value is placed on blood transfusions and organs. You can sell a extra kidney for some money. In states like Texas they choose the death penalty as often as they can to save a few bucks on housing a criminal for life. Drug companies put profit over human life, even though they already make a lot, they want to make a lot more. And the worst is killing tens of thousands over seas in the name of oil and energy. Why should I have expected Americans to think Shoot to kill would be wrong? But you know what, American Criminals are still Americans with the same mentality, so with that in mind they are prob going to kill you during a invasion hence the need for protection and the justification of killing on site. Go American society. You made your own mess, live with it. Rest of the world will progress with out you. Enjoy the wild wild west.
At least one of us advocating property protection via guns ain't American, which kind of shoots your argument out of the water a little, no?
     
BC_SIG
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Hongcouver, Japanada.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2004, 02:10 PM
 
One comment Only: You Americans Are Some Trigger Happy Mother F*ckers!.
Fav Stuff: Kevlar, Camo, Boots, Weapons, Electronics, Win XP :P
EuroTrip, "Escape!" Finding Nemo :D Oh Ya, Can't Forget Athens On Here's, He's Da Best. ;)
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2004, 02:12 PM
 
Originally posted by Sherwin:
At least one of us advocating property protection via guns ain't American, which kind of shoots your argument out of the water a little, no?
Oh you mean my British born friend? Hes insane, how many Americans do you know that own 400+ guns?
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Sherwin
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2004, 02:15 PM
 
Originally posted by Athens:
Oh you mean my British born friend? Hes insane, how many Americans do you know that own 400+ guns?
I only actually know two Americans IRL, so I have no figure against which to judge that.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2004, 02:16 PM
 
Originally posted by Troll:
The law makes that distinction. It also decides who should be allowed to enforce the laws and who shouldn't. It gives POLICEMEN the right to enforce the laws and gives them guidelines for when they can use lethal force. You're advocating letting citizens enforce the law but what's worse is you're advocating letting citizens impose the death penalty as and when they see fit. You're effectively saying that death is a reasonable punishment for the crime of theft and then letting citizens impose the penalty themselves.

Besides, what kind of society allows people to kill over a television?I taught law to a bunch of juvenile delinquents in prison in South Africa. Most of them were in there for stealing a radio or a TV or a wallet. A lot of them had nothing and were stealing to survive. Some of them had enough to survive but couldn't resist the temptation to steal a radio through an open window (literally one of the examples). These people weren't killers. They weren't inherently flawed people. They made a mistake which at the end of the day cost some guy who probably had insurance anyway, $50 max for a new radio. I think it's extremely callous to suggest that anyone should be allowed to put someone like that to death!

But you haven't answered the question I posed. If a burglar had been stealing that car in Nelspruit, that was a crime. Do you believe that Vleis Visagie was justified under any circumstances to shoot at the thief?
No, I'm advocating the way the law actually is in most states of the US. As you say, the law makes the distinction. Only in this case, it makes the sensible distinction between self defense and murder. It allows citizens to defend themselves when others make the antisocial choice to victimize them. That's a sensible law, designed to promote law and order and protect the innocent, upheld democratically as criminal law should be.

I believe that was the common law tradition in the UK as well. Before Parliament took leave of its senses, that is.
     
BC_SIG
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Hongcouver, Japanada.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2004, 02:17 PM
 
Me insane? How do you figure? Just cause off my personal habits? hmm, this would be a proper time to say YALL DONT KNOW ME!!!
Fav Stuff: Kevlar, Camo, Boots, Weapons, Electronics, Win XP :P
EuroTrip, "Escape!" Finding Nemo :D Oh Ya, Can't Forget Athens On Here's, He's Da Best. ;)
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2004, 02:18 PM
 
Originally posted by BC_SIG:
Me insane? How do you figure? Just cause off my personal habits? hmm, this would be a proper time to say YALL DOENNNN NO MEEE, YALL JUSTTTA BUNCHAAA HATTAZZZ!!!
\

Did I ever tell you that you scare the **** out of me some times LOL
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2004, 02:23 PM
 
Originally posted by Sherwin:
This is going to go nowhere.
That's probably true. Because there are people who just feel scared irrespective of how rational the fear is.

But let me ask you this - when you introduce a gun into your house, I take it you concede that you introduce a risk of an accident and a risk of the gun being stolen? At what point would you consider that THAT risk - the risk of the gun causing your death, the death of a family member or someone else - outweigh the risk that you might face a situation where it would have saved your life?. If 3 in 10,000 guns caused the death of their owners or a member of the owner's family, would you still get one?

I lived in the most violent country in the world at the height of the most violent time in its history and I asked myself that question a lot. There were times when emotionally I felt I needed a gun but then looking at it rationally, even in the worst of times, the risks of gun ownership always outweighed the risks of not having a gun. I know 1 person who died in a violent theft. Remotely. A lot got hijacked and smacked around. A lot were mugged and even more had burglaries in their homes or cars. Despite the fact that many of my friends are armed, I don't know anyone that has ever managed to defend themselves using a gun. I also know three kids who died as a result of guns; one who died while helping his father clean a gun, one who was shot by his brother after they opened the safe while the parents were out and one who was killed in a supermarket when a customer's gun went off! I know a dozen or more people who've had their guns stolen.
( Last edited by Troll; Dec 16, 2004 at 02:29 PM. )
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2004, 02:28 PM
 
Originally posted by Troll:
That's probably true. Because there are people who just feel scared irrespective of how rational the fear is.

But let me ask you this - when you introduce a gun into your house, I take it you concede that you introduce a risk of an accident and a risk of the gun being stolen? At what point would you consider that THAT risk - the risk of the gun causing your death, the death of a family member or someone else - outweigh the risk that you might face a situation where it would have saved your life?. If 3 in 10,000 guns caused the death of their owners or a member of the owner's family, would you still get one?

I lived in the most violent country in the world at the height of the most violent time in its history and I asked myself that question a lot. There were times when emotionally I felt I needed a gun but then looking at it rationally, even in the worst of times, the risks of gun ownership always outweighed the risks of not having a gun. I know 1 person who died in a violent crime incident. Remotely. A lot got hijacked and smacked around. A lot were mugged and even more had burglaries in their homes or cars. Despite the fact that many of my friends are armed, I don't know anyone that has ever managed to defend themselves using a gun. I also know three kids who died as a result of guns; one who died while helping his father clean a gun, one who was shot by his brother after they opened the safe while the parents were out and one who was killed in a supermarket when a customer's guy went off! I know a dozen or more people who've had their guns stolen.
I have no problem with a person deciding individually not to own a weapon. i don't own one myself, although not because I fear accidents (that's irrational, I know how to handle a firearm). I just don't feel the need at present.

What i do have a problem with is tilting the law toward criminals by taking away the basic right of a citizen to defend himself. That's not only wrong in and of itself as a statement about society. It's just stupid to give criminals that kind of a green light signal.
     
Sherwin
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2004, 02:30 PM
 
Originally posted by Troll:
That's probably true. Because there are people who just feel scared irrespective of how rational the fear is.
And there are still grannies being beaten senseless in their own homes. This is not going to go away until burglary is a very high risk occupation.

Originally posted by Troll:
But let me ask you this - when you introduce a gun into your house, I take it you concede that you introduce a risk of an accident and a risk of the gun being stolen? At what point would you consider that THAT risk - the risk of the gun causing your death, the death of a family member or someone else - outweigh the risk that you might face a situation where it would have saved your life?. If 3 in 10,000 guns caused the death of their owners or a member of the owner's family, would you still get one?
Yes. But then, I'm ultra-vigilant when it comes to home safety. Not allowing me to protect myself how I want to in my own home because some other homeowner is stupid (i.e. probably doesn't even check their smoke alarms, allows their kids to help them clean the guns, etc.) isn't on.
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2004, 02:30 PM
 
Originally posted by Troll:
That's probably true. Because there are people who just feel scared irrespective of how rational the fear is.

But let me ask you this - when you introduce a gun into your house, I take it you concede that you introduce a risk of an accident and a risk of the gun being stolen? At what point would you consider that THAT risk - the risk of the gun causing your death, the death of a family member or someone else - outweigh the risk that you might face a situation where it would have saved your life?. If 3 in 10,000 guns caused the death of their owners or a member of the owner's family, would you still get one?

I lived in the most violent country in the world at the height of the most violent time in its history and I asked myself that question a lot. There were times when emotionally I felt I needed a gun but then looking at it rationally, even in the worst of times, the risks of gun ownership always outweighed the risks of not having a gun. I know 1 person who died in a violent theft. Remotely. A lot got hijacked and smacked around. A lot were mugged and even more had burglaries in their homes or cars. Despite the fact that many of my friends are armed, I don't know anyone that has ever managed to defend themselves using a gun. I also know three kids who died as a result of guns; one who died while helping his father clean a gun, one who was shot by his brother after they opened the safe while the parents were out and one who was killed in a supermarket when a customer's gun went off! I know a dozen or more people who've had their guns stolen.
Im guessing you are from Johannisberg?
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2004, 02:30 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I have no problem with a person deciding individually not to own a weapon. i don't own one myself.

What i do have a problem with is tilting the law toward criminals by taking away the basic right of a citizen to defend himself. That's not only wrong in and of itself as a statement about society. It's just stupid to give criminals that kind of a green light signal.
You seem to go a lot further than that. The presumptions you support allow individuals to kill thieves even if they pose no danger to the individual's security.
     
Sherwin
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2004, 02:34 PM
 
Originally posted by Troll:
You seem to go a lot further than that. The presumptions you support allow individuals to kill thieves even if they pose no danger to the individual's security.
Again, what if the car thief takes a car belonging to an on-call doctor who needs to go out on urgent calls?

You assume that property theft doesn't put lives in danger. Sometimes it does.
(to highlight this, locally there was a recent spate of thefts of defribulators from ambulances on-call).
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2004, 02:35 PM
 
Originally posted by Sherwin:
And there are still grannies being beaten senseless in their own homes. This is not going to go away until burglary is a very high risk occupation.

It is not going to go away until the root causes of crime are dealt with. For example making drug addiction a medical problem not a criminal problem so doctors can prescribe drugs to addicts. If they didn�t have to steal 1000.00 a day to support there habits, crime would drop, drug lords would be out of business, the largest funding for organized crime would be gone and the addicts could prob function more productively in society. Like I said guns don�t kill people, people kill people. Take away the guns, they will still kill. Take away the problems, they wont have a need to kill.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2004, 02:38 PM
 
Originally posted by Sherwin:
Yes. But then, I'm ultra-vigilant when it comes to home safety. Not allowing me to protect myself how I want to in my own home because some other homeowner is stupid (i.e. probably doesn't even check their smoke alarms, allows their kids to help them clean the guns, etc.) isn't on.
No matter how careful you are, there is always a risk. Just as no matter how much security you put into your home, there's always a risk. Where do you draw the line? I think you need to know exaclty what the facts are. How much crime is there really, how effective is the gun going to be, is a gun the best way of minimising the risks etc. I think you've basically admitted that you don't know the answers to those questions.

If you ask me, you could minimise your risks far more effectively and far more safely by installing security systems than getting a gun. Get a high tech alarm system with panic remotes and motion detectors, hire a security company, move into a safer area. Those are all alternatives that don't introduce the risks that gun ownership does and effectively diminish the risk of something bad happening to you.
     
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2004, 02:39 PM
 
Originally posted by Athens:
Im guessing you are from Johannisberg?
Good ol' Joeys. I actually grew up in Kwa-Zulu Natal which is the most dangerous part of SA but did spend most of my time down there living in Johannesburg.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2004, 02:39 PM
 
Originally posted by Troll:
You seem to go a lot further than that. The presumptions you support allow individuals to kill thieves even if they pose no danger to the individual's security.
I just disagree with your definition of what "no danger" is. If a person is in the act of breaking in to a home, I'd call that reasonable grounds to fear for one's safety if you happen to be in that home. The law generally takes the same position. If the criminal doesn't like that presumption, he always has the option of not breaking in. In fact, that is a good crime-preventitive message to send.

But as I said, there are in most states situations were a person cannot reasonably claim to be acting in self defense. In that situation, you can't use force of any type. Once the danger is passed, the citizen has the obligation to let the police handle it.

We come down here to a basic difference between the US and a nanny state. We trust our citizens.
     
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2004, 02:40 PM
 
Originally posted by Sherwin:
Again, what if the car thief takes a car belonging to an on-call doctor who needs to go out on urgent calls?
Since he was watching the car get stolen from the window of his home, I'd think there's enough time for him to rent a car or call the police to come and pick him up or borrow a car from a friend no?
     
Sherwin
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2004, 02:42 PM
 
Originally posted by Athens:
It is not going to go away until the root causes of crime are dealt with.
Yep. Lock all the criminals up for life and the root causes of crime will have stopped.

Originally posted by Athens:
For example making drug addiction a medical problem not a criminal problem so doctors can prescribe drugs to addicts. If they didn�t have to steal 1000.00 a day to support there habits, crime would drop, drug lords would be out of business, the largest funding for organized crime would be gone and the addicts could prob function more productively in society.
I know you only gave this as an example, but it's unwise to go down the path of assuming that most criminals are drug addicts. A lot of them (particularly here) are career criminals because it's quite an easy job (with not many downsides).

Originally posted by Athens:
Like I said guns don�t kill people, people kill people. Take away the guns, they will still kill.
So, you're all for me having a gun then (given that I could kill with a screwdriver if needs be)?

Originally posted by Athens:
Take away the problems, they wont have a need to kill.
You can't take away the problem with "love and understanding". Only by suitable deterrent.
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2004, 02:42 PM
 
Originally posted by Troll:
Good ol' Joeys. I actually grew up in Kwa-Zulu Natal which is the most dangerous part of SA but did spend most of my time down there living in Johannesburg.
one of my best friends came from there, i've herd the stories about how bad it was. Sad thing is they said the city was alot like Vancouver before it became lawless, and it was lawless really quickly. That amazed me.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2004, 02:43 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I just disagree with your definition of what "no danger" is. If a person is in the act of breaking in to a home, I'd call that reasonable grounds to fear for one's safety if you happen to be in that home. The law generally takes the same position. If the criminal doesn't like that presumption, he always has the option of not breaking in. In fact, that is a good crime-preventitive message to send.

But as I said, there are in most states situations were a person cannot reasonably claim to be acting in self defense. In that situation, you can't use force of any type. Once the danger is passed, the citizen has the obligation to let the police handle it.

We come down here to a basic difference between the US and a nanny state. We trust our citizens.
So, you don't think you should have to say, "Oy, what are you doing over there," and give him a chance to run away before you pop a thief?

If you trust your citizens so much, why doesn't America just remove murder from the statute books.
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2004, 02:44 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
We trust our citizens.


Thats rich, coming from a Nation where every library book is now tracked and all personal rights to the protection of your information is gone.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
BC_SIG
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Hongcouver, Japanada.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2004, 02:45 PM
 
Originally posted by Troll:
That's probably true. Because there are people who just feel scared irrespective of how rational the fear is.

But let me ask you this - when you introduce a gun into your house, I take it you concede that you introduce a risk of an accident and a risk of the gun being stolen? At what point would you consider that THAT risk - the risk of the gun causing your death, the death of a family member or someone else - outweigh the risk that you might face a situation where it would have saved your life?. If 3 in 10,000 guns caused the death of their owners or a member of the owner's family, would you still get one?

I lived in the most violent country in the world at the height of the most violent time in its history and I asked myself that question a lot. There were times when emotionally I felt I needed a gun but then looking at it rationally, even in the worst of times, the risks of gun ownership always outweighed the risks of not having a gun. I know 1 person who died in a violent theft. Remotely. A lot got hijacked and smacked around. A lot were mugged and even more had burglaries in their homes or cars. Despite the fact that many of my friends are armed, I don't know anyone that has ever managed to defend themselves using a gun. I also know three kids who died as a result of guns; one who died while helping his father clean a gun, one who was shot by his brother after they opened the safe while the parents were out and one who was killed in a supermarket when a customer's gun went off! I know a dozen or more people who've had their guns stolen.
Well I have a good response to your post Troll, that is what happens when people are stupid with guns. Im not saying children should never be exposed to firearms, im just saying they should be very well educated on safety principles. Ive been shooting since I was 6yrs old, Ive grow up with guns, its COMMON SENSE & SECOND NATURE to me to be safe with guns. But very few children have the knowledge I do, thus leading to serious/fatal accidents, those who would let their children around them without making sure that they are empty, no rounds chambered and safeties on, I say the parent deserves to die for endangering their child(ren)
Fav Stuff: Kevlar, Camo, Boots, Weapons, Electronics, Win XP :P
EuroTrip, "Escape!" Finding Nemo :D Oh Ya, Can't Forget Athens On Here's, He's Da Best. ;)
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2004, 02:45 PM
 
Originally posted by Athens:
Thats rich, coming from a Nation where every library book is now tracked and all personal rights to the protection of your information is gone.
Off topic, hyperbolic, and wrong.
     
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2004, 02:48 PM
 
Originally posted by BC_SIG:
Well I have a good response to your post Troll, that is what happens when people are stupid with guns. Im not saying children should never be exposed to firearms, im just saying they should be very well educated on safety principles. Ive been shooting since I was 6yrs old, Ive grow up with guns, its COMMON SENSE & SECOND NATURE to me to be safe with guns. But very few children have the knowledge I do, thus leading to serious/fatal accidents, those who would let their children around them without making sure that they are empty, no rounds chambered and safeties on, I say the parent deserves to die for endangering their child(ren)
So as soon as there no stupid people on the planet, we can all have guns.
     
Sherwin
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2004, 02:50 PM
 
Originally posted by Troll:
No matter how careful you are, there is always a risk. Just as no matter how much security you put into your home, there's always a risk. Where do you draw the line? I think you need to know exaclty what the facts are. How much crime is there really, how effective is the gun going to be, is a gun the best way of minimising the risks etc. I think you've basically admitted that you don't know the answers to those questions.
You're missing the deterrent factor. As it stands, an intruder knows the homeowner can't really hurt him. Is he really going to continue with his life of crime if he thinks he might end up dead on his next mission? Wouldn't he just join the army if he wanted a job like that?

Originally posted by Troll:
If you ask me, you could minimise your risks far more effectively and far more safely by installing security systems than getting a gun. Get a high tech alarm system with panic remotes and motion detectors,
Nobody takes notice of alarms any more. Last time I heard an alarm (while babysitting) I phoned the cops, who took four hours to get to the scene. For all they knew it could have been a hot event including violence/rape/etc..

Originally posted by Troll:
hire a security company,
Easy for us rich folk to say.

Originally posted by Troll:
move into a safer area.
Ozzy Osbourne's house was broken into the other week. If he can't afford to live in a safe area (which, incidentally, there are none of), then what hope for the rest of us?

Originally posted by Troll:
Those are all alternatives that don't introduce the risks that gun ownership does and effectively diminish the risk of something bad happening to you.
Now come up with some viable alternatives.
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2004, 02:51 PM
 
Originally posted by Sherwin:
Yep. Lock all the criminals up for life and the root causes of crime will have stopped.
No thats a end result and a bandaid solution. To actually fix the root causes, there shouldnt be a crime in the first place to lock a person up

[quote]

I know you only gave this as an example, but it's unwise to go down the path of assuming that most criminals are drug addicts. A lot of them (particularly here) are career criminals because it's quite an easy job (with not many downsides).
[quote]

In Vancouver its mostly drugs, I imagine its different for every city. But again tackle the root causes. If its criminals that became that way because we failed them as kids, fix that to prevent more. If its profitable because there is a market for the stolen goods, then crash these markets. The point is to prevent the crime in the first place, not lock up people after the fact.

So, you're all for me having a gun then (given that I could kill with a screwdriver if needs be)?
I never said I was against it, but people are stupid to think they can defend themselfs like they think they can and worst that its better to kill in protection of items, its just wrong.

You can't take away the problem with "love and understanding". Only by suitable deterrent.
Takes a little of everything. Cant make a cake with just eggs.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:14 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,