GUN banned no more.
Want to say something off topic? Something that has nothing to do with Trek? Post it here.
posted on July 23rd, 2008, 9:58 pm
"After he was turned loose, Gene Allred was among those who were enraged. He later recalled, "I was numb....We could have shot him out there in that alley. That would have been the best for Mr. Smith and for his victims." In this paragraph, Gene Allred states this after the fact. However, he had not known that Mr. Smith would have raped 83 (yes it is horrendous) others later on… after Mr. Smith had been detained. Thus he is essentially admitting that he could care less whether Mr. Smith would or would not commit a crime, Gene would still murder him.
Frodo, like Gene, you can’t possibly know ahead of time if this convicted criminal was going to rape again after undergoing chemical castration (by the way, a jury… made up of people… decided this: "His attorney convinced the court that he was a candidate for a new procedure called "chemical castration.""). Nor can you claim that any criminal would, after being released, commit a crime again. Nobody is born a criminal, honest citizens become them. So are you suggesting everyone should be detained/killed on the basis of what you think they are capable of? Does that mean you are advocating a Minority Report style government? However, instead of mere incarceration without due process or even determining whether the crime WOULD have occurred, as in that movie, you are suggesting killing on mere suspicion. Take our own current justice system. For all the times we successfully convict and incarcerate/punish the correct criminal, we have quite a few trials in which the individual being charged is innocent, yet serves out time. This is the entire issue with capital punishment: you risk killing innocent people. Yet that is what you are advocating: that citizens kill or maim people on suspicion of guilt. The U.S. has the highest incarceration rate in the world, at 737 individuals per 100,000. The Russian Federation has roughly 600, and South Africa, the third largest… is 320 ish. That article claims the “system” failed in this case, where it dares not point out how many people we actually put away. Is that the right method? (After all, we have such a high percentage of violence in the U.S., yet our incarceration rate is so high… gee, too bad putting more “criminals” in jail doesn’t just make the problem vanish).
So basically what it boils down to is that most of the gun advocates here are saying that they want to completely do away with habeas corpus, one of our amendments (just like the 2nd), and create in essence a Wild West style system: whoever has the biggest gun, the most bullets, and the quickest draw wins…. Or maybe I misunderstood you in particular Frodo? Perhaps you’d prefer the People’s Republic of China’s form of policing which is… detain, interrogate, incarcerate, and usually. .. execute… no matter whether the accused is actually innocent or guilty. There, one is guilty until proven innocent: just as in the system you are advocating from the article you cited. Either way, you would just like to do away with due process … and that is all ever what enabling every individual to own a firearm will accomplish (laws after all, will have to be created to protect civilians who use their firearms and accidently kill bystanders while trying to hunt criminals… or when they mistakenly kill criminals-yes that is still murder-or when they mistakenly kill people they believe are criminals).
Well, I am happy to say that our criminal JUSTICE system doesn't work in the way you want it to. However, I definitely believe we need to change our current system.
Frodo, like Gene, you can’t possibly know ahead of time if this convicted criminal was going to rape again after undergoing chemical castration (by the way, a jury… made up of people… decided this: "His attorney convinced the court that he was a candidate for a new procedure called "chemical castration.""). Nor can you claim that any criminal would, after being released, commit a crime again. Nobody is born a criminal, honest citizens become them. So are you suggesting everyone should be detained/killed on the basis of what you think they are capable of? Does that mean you are advocating a Minority Report style government? However, instead of mere incarceration without due process or even determining whether the crime WOULD have occurred, as in that movie, you are suggesting killing on mere suspicion. Take our own current justice system. For all the times we successfully convict and incarcerate/punish the correct criminal, we have quite a few trials in which the individual being charged is innocent, yet serves out time. This is the entire issue with capital punishment: you risk killing innocent people. Yet that is what you are advocating: that citizens kill or maim people on suspicion of guilt. The U.S. has the highest incarceration rate in the world, at 737 individuals per 100,000. The Russian Federation has roughly 600, and South Africa, the third largest… is 320 ish. That article claims the “system” failed in this case, where it dares not point out how many people we actually put away. Is that the right method? (After all, we have such a high percentage of violence in the U.S., yet our incarceration rate is so high… gee, too bad putting more “criminals” in jail doesn’t just make the problem vanish).
So basically what it boils down to is that most of the gun advocates here are saying that they want to completely do away with habeas corpus, one of our amendments (just like the 2nd), and create in essence a Wild West style system: whoever has the biggest gun, the most bullets, and the quickest draw wins…. Or maybe I misunderstood you in particular Frodo? Perhaps you’d prefer the People’s Republic of China’s form of policing which is… detain, interrogate, incarcerate, and usually. .. execute… no matter whether the accused is actually innocent or guilty. There, one is guilty until proven innocent: just as in the system you are advocating from the article you cited. Either way, you would just like to do away with due process … and that is all ever what enabling every individual to own a firearm will accomplish (laws after all, will have to be created to protect civilians who use their firearms and accidently kill bystanders while trying to hunt criminals… or when they mistakenly kill criminals-yes that is still murder-or when they mistakenly kill people they believe are criminals).
Well, I am happy to say that our criminal JUSTICE system doesn't work in the way you want it to. However, I definitely believe we need to change our current system.
posted on August 15th, 2008, 2:56 am
It just comes down to what do you stand for more guns witch ad insecurity and make fat cats at the NRA Rich or do you stand for a violence free America?
posted on August 15th, 2008, 4:25 am
ewm90 wrote:It just comes down to what do you stand for more, guns which add security and are a constitutional right or do you stand for a insecure America?
Fixed it for you
posted on August 15th, 2008, 8:52 am
a gun ban wouldn't even come close to creating a violence free America. more like removing a drop in the ocean and then the rain pouring down after a second or two.
posted on August 15th, 2008, 10:33 am
I did not say it would nor do I think it will I said is that what you stand for or do you stand for more guns...
Just so I get this right buy removing weapons that can are used in militaries to kill groups of people would be a drop in the ocean what kind of world do you think we live in?
I don't get the rain part. Please clarify.
Just so I get this right buy removing weapons that can are used in militaries to kill groups of people would be a drop in the ocean what kind of world do you think we live in?
I don't get the rain part. Please clarify.
posted on August 15th, 2008, 12:57 pm
What Casper meant is that by removing, or should I say, trying to remove all weapons from the public, you love that public defenseless against common threats it faces. He is of course 100% correct.
posted on August 15th, 2008, 6:33 pm
A firearm is simply a tool .It has no brain. the Operator should. It has no reasoning capacity. THe operator shoul be cognicant of the dangers inheriant of the use of a firearm.It does what it is designed to do by its operator. So it is not the firearms fault someone dies.It is OPERATOR ERROR!!! NO matter what the tool is MAN WILL STILL KILL MAN. Be it a knife, a car , Posion, baseball bat , brick , bare hands , crowbar, ect.
posted on August 15th, 2008, 8:52 pm
Relay PD you make it sound like its anarchy. We live in America not Russia We have fairly good law enforcement.
Pappy63
Thats wishful thinking you mite have better luck handing out can of mustered gas to every one and expecting that they are all going to be smart enough not to open them.
Pappy63
Thats wishful thinking you mite have better luck handing out can of mustered gas to every one and expecting that they are all going to be smart enough not to open them.
PREATOR DEFIANT wrote:What Casper meant is that by removing, or should I say, trying to remove all weapons from the public, you love that public defenseless against common threats it faces. He is of course 100% correct.
posted on August 15th, 2008, 9:11 pm
Yes, to reiterate what Ewm said (and what I have repeatedly posted), to simply state that a firearm is a tool is a misnomer: a hydrogen bomb mounted on an ICBM is a tool as well (essentially a big gun), and when we argue about “operator error”… The fact remains that we are not discussing whether guns are dangerous, we are discussing whether people in the possession of these weapons are more dangerous than if they did not have access to them (and by association, who should have the right to wield them). Likewise we are arguing about how dangerous firearms are compared to other weapons, as well as how they change the face of violence. Although you state that “MAN WILL STILL KILL MAN. Be it a knife, a car , Posion, baseball bat , brick , bare hands , crowbar, ect” what changes is how Man kills. Firearms allow a type of easy killing that is utterly different from any of the above items.
…and although I am sure we can all pull useless articles out of our arses about firearm “good and evil” here is a wonderful little snippet of an average Joe using his shotgun for self protection … against his lawnmower: Cranky man shoots balky lawn mower - Criminal weirdness - MSNBC.com . People do stupid things, but I prefer not to have them do them with objects that can maim or kill without conscious intent.
…and although I am sure we can all pull useless articles out of our arses about firearm “good and evil” here is a wonderful little snippet of an average Joe using his shotgun for self protection … against his lawnmower: Cranky man shoots balky lawn mower - Criminal weirdness - MSNBC.com . People do stupid things, but I prefer not to have them do them with objects that can maim or kill without conscious intent.
posted on August 16th, 2008, 1:12 am
I'm pretty sure there is no real comparison between Thermonuclear weapons and firearms, as one can blow up an entire country, and the other would be pretty lucky to kill a few dozen people with how law enforcement acts now adays. People who carry firearms with a permit have actually proven to be a very law abiding group.
I mean apparently there are less gun deaths then those caused by vehicle accidents in the US every year. On top of that, most of those gun deaths are apparently suicides. We already have guns, and the US is the most technologically advanced country in the world. This liberal idea that with everyone carrying guns, they will frequently be compelled to use them, is unfounded, and unjustified.
I mean apparently there are less gun deaths then those caused by vehicle accidents in the US every year. On top of that, most of those gun deaths are apparently suicides. We already have guns, and the US is the most technologically advanced country in the world. This liberal idea that with everyone carrying guns, they will frequently be compelled to use them, is unfounded, and unjustified.
posted on August 16th, 2008, 1:20 am
They are both tools for distorting life and they have no place in a world of peace unless you can make money of selling them....... But then do we live what we preach we ask former malicious give there weapons in to us. Wile we arm our citizens.
posted on August 16th, 2008, 1:27 am
You want a utopia, so did the socialists who somehow invented Communism.
Who have we disarmed?
Who have we disarmed?
posted on August 16th, 2008, 3:50 am
ewm90, I think here we all have become too entrenched in retoric. Responsability is the key of a good hunter and a firearm user. Knowing what your target is and what lies beyond s a paramount of a responsiible firearm user. Responsable owners are probilally one of the safest groups not the chuckle head gang bangers and thugs, and plain disturbed folks that you hear about in the news. Yes there should be places you should not be able to carry a firearm. Bars, courthouses, nightclubs, schools. and concealed they should be not openly carried.By receiving training on proper firearm carry and use I see no problem allowing properly licensed citizens to be able to carry a firearm if they want to . [br]Posted on: August 16, 2008, 04:39:01 AM
A longs as Man has the ability to shape metal we will have tools of destruction . It is how and if we use them that is the question we all should be debating. Acountability and responsability of knollage is the key. As long as there are metal shaping tools and the knollage of how make them there will be no way to restrict the flow of them to those who should not have access Ie crooks children and mentally disturbed folks.ewm90 wrote:But that stops mentally ill and dumb criminals. As long as guns are available they will be used.
You can kill someone with a fork, Yes but it take much more hate/work to will some one with a fork than a gun. Thats a silly argument.
Agin What benefit do having large guns have to a personal laval other then hunting in the gunnel pop. You could use a fork to protect you self.
You need guns life you need a 3ed leg.
posted on August 16th, 2008, 2:21 pm
Whare did Communism come from. Not having violinist = Communism 
You have a very creative imagination.
Militants in Iraq soon-sys and Shiites.
You have a very creative imagination.Militants in Iraq soon-sys and Shiites.
PREATOR DEFIANT wrote:You want a utopia, so did the socialists who somehow invented Communism.
Who have we disarmed?
posted on August 16th, 2008, 7:21 pm
Well if you can't make the link, you should go stare at a history book.
We didn't disarm them any more then our own government disarms us. In fact they can probably pack an automatic weapon a lot easier then someone like I could.
We didn't disarm them any more then our own government disarms us. In fact they can probably pack an automatic weapon a lot easier then someone like I could.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests