Infanteer said:
Well that was cute - nice attempt to dismiss my arguments and statistical data with political rhetoric. As well, I don't think I've ever seen the term "radical" and "reactionary" used in the same sentence - well done on (again) providing a "junk food" statement to this thread (filling, but of no nutritional value).
Ok, you got me there. A little underhanded shot to those of you out there that are. You know who you are.
If you've bothered to read anything that has been proposed here, you would have seen that these were proposals for "prevention". If crime is a social problem (background issues) instead of a functional one (guy has a gun), have you considered that reducing the incentives and payoffs for commiting a crime is a form of prevention?
Unfortunatly this is to simplistic. Yes, I have done so as well, but reducing payoffs is not going to reduce your crime very much. Those people who still need to feed their habits are still going to risk it.And yes, it is a form of prevention, but not a particularly efficent one.
Punishments are not to "deter" crime, they are meant to protect society from those who seem to have no care for the boundaries it has set in place (mostly, differing degrees of sociopathic behaviour).
Agreed. But since we are not just talking about reducing crime here, but crime commited with guns. We are always going to have that core of hardtimers who will not be able to be rehabilitated and thus need the time to fit the crime. But as I have stated before, most violent crime is based on one time flashes of anger/bad judgement. Add a gun to this and you have a more likely chance of death. I'm sure Bruce can attest to the majority of those in his attendance to this fact? One time stupid or bad decisions with a weapon. Maybe because of drugs or alchohol, who knows.
Listen to what Bruce Monkhouse says - he is in the business after all. I recall him saying that most of the fellows he deals with are constant re-offenders; if they're not on the street, they won't be around the re-offend. How many drug pushers does Singapore have on the street repeating their past transgretions??
No doubt. There are many that deserve to stay in. Especially if Bruce works at a Max. However, the greater portion of the prison population are not in max nor are they lost cases. The chance of reoffending is high. Granted. So should we not let these people have another chance at leading some kind of normal life? My wife works as a correctional officer as well, so I have a bit of an idea.
The figures seem to show that we could have payed for it with the funds for the gun-registry. Don't equate "more police" with "police state" - a police state is dependent on what the cops do, not how many of them are. That is just reverting to the "junk food" claims you've been apt to throw around on this thread.
Granted. It was to simplistic. However the point still stands that more police often make people wonder what is going on and "is this a dangerous place". It does affect the pychie.
As well, implicit in the argument (at least I figured) was that the Court system would need reform to deal with criminal actions to set the example that society will not tolerate criminal acts. All the police in the world dumping every criminal in Canada into jail makes no difference if the Justice System fails to act in a matter that ensures justice is proportional, fair, quick, and efficient.
Agreed. I do think there are some things that need to be toughened up, including gun related crimes. As well, there should be tougher standards on some criminals when they appear before their NPB hearings. However, prevention still is the word of the day when it comes to all of this.
Are you going to back that? More "junk food" here. How is it that the Gebusi have NO GUNS and yet they have a rate of "death" (murder) that is higher then any other society on the face of the planet?
Good for them. Who the hell are they? The fact remains that guns (in whoevers hands) have the potential to kill. Period. Take the guns away and you have less likely chances of shooting someone. Unless you want to revert to that of an african tribal way of ripping each other apart, and/or bashing each other on the heads with whose concealed bats?
As well, I've said before, how does a CCW suddenly "arm Canada". Since firearms ownership is legal in Canada right now, Billy can take "daddy's gun" to school anyways - I don't get where you are going with this claim.
Agreed. However if you increase the "gun" culture to that of the US, then your more likely to have Billy doing just that. Canadians just don't think along those lines. Its not part of our national way of thinking. Change that, and you risk it happening more often. Will it "never" happen? Of course not. No one can say that.
You're the one who states that "Arm citizens - All you get is a whole lot of death."
Yes I did. But I can walk the city streets at all hours of the day without even the thought of carrying or without any fear. I don't intentionally put myself into harms way by walking down dark alley's, nor through that blacked out park. Common sense. If I did, you bet I would have fear.
Well, that is for them to decide, isn't it? Since when are you the sole authority on how others should perceive their surroundings or their attitudes to society in general? Lots of preaching here, but again, in the form of "junk food".
I can throw the same back at you. I'm hardly a sole authority on this, not can I make/change how people think. I can just voice my opinion on what they hold in their hands, not their heads.
Go back to John Locke and you will see that Property plays a central role in our political dialogue. A person has an intimate stake with their earthly possessions and although you may want to denigrate it as "a wallet and a credit card", it is actually much more.
Since a person has put their limited time and energy on this Earth to draw something from the Commons, it would be presumptuous to assume that they will abide as someone "helps themself" to the labour of others by transgressing their house or personal space to take from someone property which they have put a part of their life into achieving and acquiring. This is why Locke fully believes that defending property and defending life are two very similar (if not the same) things.
No doubt. If they do so, then they should be charged for the crime and sent to prision. But I think your priorities (and John's) are a little screwed up here. Is a car worth a life? Is your wallet? If you equate an inanimate object the same value as a persons life, then what can I say? I just shake my head.
If your ego has made you happy to be a victim, then that is your prerogative - I'll remember that next time a see someone whining about why others have to do something that the individual citizen can be fully empowered to do on their own (defend themselves). You should be mindful that others may not share such a laissez faire attitude towards their personal space and surroundings.
As stated above. Life is more valuable then any object.
As for the empowering part. I guess we should just go and let all those cops go home now? We don't need them. We're taking the law into our own hands now. I wonder why people seem to think of guns as empowering?
Okay - I'll just break out my copy of
Das Kapital and do that tommorrow. :
How are you going to do this?
As well, there are some fairly wealthy criminal gangs and and youths involved in the drug trade that commit violent offences. Although they don't usually target innocent people (there acts are more "contract resolution" then "predatory"), criminal acts from across the socioeconomic spectrum seem to point out that your simple claim to "get rid of poverty" isn't going to be the magic pill.
Ghiglieri, who I've quoted numerous times, has made a strong connection between violence and the natural funtioning of sexual selection - how do you suppose to get around "ingrained" violent tendencies with "get rid of poverty"? I would encourage you to pick up and read his book on the roots of violence - as a Vietnam vet and an academic (Anthropologist) he has a unique perspective.
You go do that. Let me know what you find out. I never said it was a magic pill. No such thing. There will always be criminals no matter what. However, think of the drop in crime if we did get rid of poverty? No need to sell drugs or body or both to pay the bills/feed the kid. Not as much dispair and drinking/drug use to kill the pain.
Will it work? If we put our minds to it.
Is it easy and will it solve all our problems? No way and maybe by half. There will still be plenty of rich folk who need white stuff to stuff up their noses and who are depressed beyond functioning. There will still be hard core nut cases who just need to commit violence. There will be plenty of people (rich and poor)who still want to make a fast buck illegally by selling the crap.
"Living in his shoes for a while"? Are you saying that we should tolerate crime because of the background of the person committing a violent felony? It seems to me that you are trying to excuse people from committing offenses because some citizens are "rich" and others are "poor".
Sounds like some of that "culture of entitlement/no individual responsibility/it's all someone else's fault" line. Are you sure you want to excuse people from living up to their obligations as citizens not to commit felony offences?
Not at all. Just that we should look at the underlieing problems of society and try to solve those problems instead of quick "blow their heads off"/"throw em jail" fixes. And since when is it an obligation as a citizen to protect themselves by harming/taking a life of another human being?
So you're basing your arguments off of the fact that you don't like handguns. I'll have to show you Brad's earlier quote again:
"The point of having principles - such as respecting the freedom of others to pursue their own happiness - is to do so consistently, not merely when it's potentially your ox that is about to be gored. OTOH, if you are an unprincipled egoist, that would not apply....."
I've yet to see you apply any principle to your argument - I'm beginning to think you are letting unprincipled egoism influence what your telling us ("Well, I sure don't like Handguns, so get rid of them - if we can't do that, restrict them in every way possible!").
Actually I find them quite fun myself. I'm a very good marksman and I find a slight rush and ego boost when I'm at the range and do well. However if it comes right down to it, I don't NEED handguns. Nor do I see a particular sence in them beyond their usefulness as a military/para military weapon. Citizens do not NEED them for anything beyond the "feeling" that they want one. Its a rush/ego boost. I'll post a message later with a few ideas that more principal for you.
Tell that to a victim of a violent crime. If you believe that we can eliminate crime, then we may as well give up here. As long as man is willing to pray on his fellow man, we should offer society access to "a pound of cure"
You bet. I'll let them know that in order to prevent that crime, they have taken another persons life. That person is now dead. Even if they are informed that the person was just wanting to steal their DVD player to sell it for drugs. Thus revenge or justice is satisfied. We'll see how they feel about that after it sinks in a bit. They just killed someone. Boy I think they'll have a party now.
Its more likely they'll realize the horror of what they have done, and will need a lot of professional help. If not, then I just shake my head.
The "other guys" - if your asking me to emphasize with robbers, rapists, thugs, and murders then I'm not really interested. Perhaps the boys down at the clubhouse (with the illegal guns) may enjoy that "cliche".
Maybe not all of them. But then I say you are closed minded and if you cannot understand the cause and effect of what it means to live in poverty, then you will never be part of a solution.
I've yet to scream "liberal" - infact, this is was your tactic by writing off my previous post as "yet just another typically radical right wing reactionary solution". Good job painting with a broad brush though.
Thank you. I was aiming at those who have scream thus. You Inf are always very reasonable with your arguments and I love debating with you.
As for logic, I'm not seeing much - at least of the concrete variety that you would back up with facts and data. All I've seen is your opinion which you don't seem to want to hold up to counter-arguments. You've yet to make any attempt to put the reams of statisics and data that many members have provided - all you've done is to preach your viewpoint - one that, for good reasons, many others don't buy. Have you ever stopped to consider why nobody is buying into what you've said so far?
Granted. I will post another message later with some logical break down for you. However as I have said before. There are NO figures or stats out there without counters. So to fall on them is useless. Its just spouting figures that people can either ignore or refute.
And I believe that the person who quoted Grossman is seeing some of my points as valid.
Thanks
).
