Orlando Victims Did Not Die Because They Were Gay--They Were Unarmed!
Tomorrow I plan to visit a gun store(s) to add one or two firearms to my collection.
This retired state worker can afford to since I inherited some money.
Thinking of a 9mm carbine since some day it may be very hard to find or afford .223-cal AR15 ammo.
Thinking 9mm and .38-cal. ammo will hopefully always be out there somewhere.
I will build up my ammo hoard regardless.
Left over from my corrections career and semi-retired security guard days, I have three revolver speed loaders that will hold preferable .357 Magnum rounds as well as .38s.
The revolver I seek fires both like one I used to have before I traded it for a .45 I no longer have either.
PC old dino ain't.
I even keep both a shotgun and a Bible in reach my bed. Not to mention six inches of steel in an old-fashioned Italian switchblade.
Obama has to hate how I cling to certain things. What can I say?
I'm just an old dino. And allosaurs were North Americans.
This retired state worker can afford to since I inherited some money.
Thinking of a 9mm carbine since some day it may be very hard to find or afford .223-cal AR15 ammo.
Thinking 9mm and .38-cal. ammo will hopefully always be out there somewhere.
I will build up my ammo hoard regardless.
Left over from my corrections career and semi-retired security guard days, I have three revolver speed loaders that will hold preferable .357 Magnum rounds as well as .38s.
The revolver I seek fires both like one I used to have before I traded it for a .45 I no longer have either.
PC old dino ain't.
I even keep both a shotgun and a Bible in reach my bed. Not to mention six inches of steel in an old-fashioned Italian switchblade.
Obama has to hate how I cling to certain things. What can I say?
I'm just an old dino. And allosaurs were North Americans.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
Ironic if you consider all the pulses that stopped there.
In that respect guns reduce crime.
Great rid of guns and gangs of punks will be kicking in doors all over the place.
I would be disappointed to learn that cruel punishments, banning guns, or arbitrary searches are effective because I'm for protecting people's rights even if the price is more crime. Maybe some people can't accept that freedom is not free.
It reminds me of people exploiting or denying climate change. Naomi Klein in her book This Changes Everything says she went from hoping we'd find a policy and technological solution of some sort to being giddy that this is just the right crisis big enough and global enough to sell the world on socialism. "Yippie!!" It's so disgusting I could not finish the book. She doesn't care about the truth. She wants an excuse for gov't involvement in the economy. People who don't want gov't in the economy do the same damn thing, telling themselves it must all be a conspiracy.
It's easy to ignore facts that complicate one's goals.
I have a certain finger on my hand to respond to their garbage with.
The nightclub hired what it considered the best available security, an "off duty" police officer. That the security guard failed in his duties speaks to many issues, but you have not identified one of them.
I'm for decriminalizing many things that are not directly hurting someone. So that could be: drug laws, gun laws, seatbelt/helmet laws, non-forcible sex crimes, workplace safety laws, tax laws, no-smoking laws, traffic laws, and so on. Note that I'm saying decreasing, not going overboard and allowing activities that will immediately lead to people getting hurt. The idea is the police aren't a force like bad luck that could come down on anyone. They're only looking for those few things. This means if people see a crime they can fee free to work with the police without worrying about the police investigating them. This means people help the police more and take the law into their own hands less.
"To do otherwise is to toss out the very "innocent until proven guilty" principle our legal system is founded on to replace it with we reserve the right to prosecute you for anything you could have done in the past if we choose to review the surveillance tapes of your behavior. "
I think things are going that way though, regardless of the foundations of our legal system, because it's so easy now. My understanding of what they do now is they look at the tapes illegally, then they go try to find some plausible way they could have gotten that same evidence independently without admitting their investigation began with an illegal search. I've just heard that; not sure. But if they do that, I want them to stop it and/or institute rules that prevent abuse.
I do not know what your victimization was, but it is not relevant to the discussion because pretty much everyone has been a victim of crime of one kind or another, including me. Perceiving yourself as a victim does not give you special insight. If anything, it clouds your judgement.
If people think that they have a chance to evade, you can do the most horrific thing to them, they will still chance it. But if they know that they will be caught inevitably, swift or slow is the same to the rational actor.
The key is "rational." I am not sure that premeditated murder is as common as prosecutors claim. I think that some people just stay mad (irrational) a lot longer.
This is another consequence of studying criminology in college and at university. Everyone else has a "mass mediated hyper reality" view of crime. They have opinions. Criminologists have facts. I assure you, it was a learning experience for me, as well.
And regarding guns, you're not saying people should not be armed. You're just saying it is not a primary factor in decreasing crime.
You need to defend yourself and protect your loved ones. Anyone who breaks into your home while you are in it is not rational. It is not a time for discussion.
It is not a matter of punishing the perpetrator. The other person is irrelevant: it could be a bear ... You (and your loved ones) are the primary consideration.
That said, we do not have guns here in our home. I could get a permit pretty easily, this being Texas. But the choice is mine (and thine) and that's all there is to it.
I do not see a causal relationship between the increase in gun ownership and the drop in violent crime. Crime has been falling for decades. I attribute that to birth control and (ultimately) to legally available pregnancy terminations.
That's possible. Do you have any specific examples in mind?
"Now all that data's being collected and stored electronically, so it is practical to monitor everyone."
The problem many legal scholars bring up is that even in public places, the gathering of evidence must be substantiated at a bare minimum by probable cause and in most cases an actual warrant. You can't just tape every moment of someone's life and then go back afterwards and look for infractions. This is the whole controversy involving the CIA/NSA digital surveillance problem. Investigation and prosecution are only supposed to begin after a crime has been committed and identified, a suspect named, and warrants issued. To do otherwise is to toss out the very "innocent until proven guilty" principle our legal system is founded on to replace it with "we reserve the right to prosecute you for anything you could have done in the past if we choose to review the surveillance tapes of your behavior." That's not really a future I want to comprehend.
"But the only way to increase the probability of getting caught is either to outlaw more things (not my favorite option and from #2 above not yours either) or increase surveillance"
I'm actually saying laws tightly focused on a few crimes might increase the chance of getting caught. If there are countless laws, the police could stop anyone and find they're breaking some law, but that doesn't make someone thinking of breaking into a house more likely to be caught.
I have very mixed thoughts on surveillance. It's getting cheaper and easier, and law enforcement can't resist using it to do their job. I almost think we have to admit aloud we're watching everyone's every move and then have strict rules on how that data is accessed. There's no expectation of privacy in public, so the police could hire someone to follow you around all day, but it would be too costly. Now all that data's being collected and stored electronically, so it is practical to monitor everyone.
I would like some rule that ensures that data is encrypted and the key can only be given by a judge with notice to the public that it's happening, just like a regular search warrant.
With respect to fewer actions being criminalized, Reality determines the consequences of certain actions - not people. We can either choose to pattern our laws around reality, or attempt to deceive ourselves by decriminalizing actions with which reality disagrees (aka crimes) or criminalizing actions reality agrees with (commonly called freedoms). While a simple answer is appealing, I must question its effectiveness.
I think the other part of the philosophical question we have to ask is simple: to what end? All laws have an end in mind: a goal or purpose. Ultimately every moral issue gets down to a core principle. Identify that core principle and it makes the actual moral discussion possible.
The biggest issues with the criminal justice system are 1) We should focus more on increasing probability of getting caught rather than worse penalties for getting caught b/c I don't think criminals are long-range thinkers. 2) I want fewer things illegal, so everyone feels like the police are on their side if they're not stealing or purposely hurting people. This way people are less inclined to take the law into their own hands or just ignore crime.
Load more comments...